<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_05_1331208</id>
	<title>DVD-CSS's Encryption Not Enough? Here Comes DECE</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262699340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Studios digitally restricting (drm) or locking down content with DVD-CSS not enough for you?  Well, get ready, here comes the entertainment cartel's Holy Grail, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/technology/04video.html">all-hardware encryption</a>, via 'DECE.'  And let's not forget <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/06/1426235/The-Perils-of-DRM-mdash-When-Content-Providers-Die">this little issue</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Studios digitally restricting ( drm ) or locking down content with DVD-CSS not enough for you ?
Well , get ready , here comes the entertainment cartel 's Holy Grail , all-hardware encryption , via 'DECE .
' And let 's not forget this little issue .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Studios digitally restricting (drm) or locking down content with DVD-CSS not enough for you?
Well, get ready, here comes the entertainment cartel's Holy Grail, all-hardware encryption, via 'DECE.
'  And let's not forget this little issue.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654146</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>Benfea</author>
	<datestamp>1262703540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep. The purpose of DRM is to punish legitimate customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
The purpose of DRM is to punish legitimate customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
The purpose of DRM is to punish legitimate customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656662</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>omkhar</author>
	<datestamp>1262714280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So tell me, who do I hurt if I pay once for a CD or DVD, then rip or pirate it and play the unlocked files on any/every device I own? Who do I hurt when I lend my copy to a friend (who, if he finds he likes it, may even purchase his own copy)?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p> </div><p>Your assumption is that your friend will buy a copy. Hollywood is afraid they might actually have to make movies that people want to buy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So tell me , who do I hurt if I pay once for a CD or DVD , then rip or pirate it and play the unlocked files on any/every device I own ?
Who do I hurt when I lend my copy to a friend ( who , if he finds he likes it , may even purchase his own copy ) ?
  Your assumption is that your friend will buy a copy .
Hollywood is afraid they might actually have to make movies that people want to buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So tell me, who do I hurt if I pay once for a CD or DVD, then rip or pirate it and play the unlocked files on any/every device I own?
Who do I hurt when I lend my copy to a friend (who, if he finds he likes it, may even purchase his own copy)?
  Your assumption is that your friend will buy a copy.
Hollywood is afraid they might actually have to make movies that people want to buy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658774</id>
	<title>There is no encryption for non-interactive content</title>
	<author>yariv</author>
	<datestamp>1262721540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least until they'll get to the idea of planting the decryption into the costumer and neural connection.</p><p>The reason is simple, at some point the content you're trying to lock has to get to the costumer, that's the whole point. At that point (at the first point it's free, you might say) rip it. They might make it difficult, but you can always replace the actual audio/video generation with recording. There is no way to encrypt the audio/video. Then, if there is any open format that is universally (or almost universally) supported, the content is no longer protected.</p><p>The only ways (I can imagine) to protect this content are things like:<br>* neural connection with encryption, when removing the chip from the brain is impossible (obviously far beyond modern technology, not to mention moral issues)<br>* players check online for copyright of content (beyond modern technology, won't work without internet connection, privacy issues)<br>Or similar crazy ideas. It will take many years before they'll get to something of this sort.</p><p>All this apply only to non-interactive content, of course, because in interactive content you might encrypt (using hardware encryption) the computation, then it won't leak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least until they 'll get to the idea of planting the decryption into the costumer and neural connection.The reason is simple , at some point the content you 're trying to lock has to get to the costumer , that 's the whole point .
At that point ( at the first point it 's free , you might say ) rip it .
They might make it difficult , but you can always replace the actual audio/video generation with recording .
There is no way to encrypt the audio/video .
Then , if there is any open format that is universally ( or almost universally ) supported , the content is no longer protected.The only ways ( I can imagine ) to protect this content are things like : * neural connection with encryption , when removing the chip from the brain is impossible ( obviously far beyond modern technology , not to mention moral issues ) * players check online for copyright of content ( beyond modern technology , wo n't work without internet connection , privacy issues ) Or similar crazy ideas .
It will take many years before they 'll get to something of this sort.All this apply only to non-interactive content , of course , because in interactive content you might encrypt ( using hardware encryption ) the computation , then it wo n't leak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least until they'll get to the idea of planting the decryption into the costumer and neural connection.The reason is simple, at some point the content you're trying to lock has to get to the costumer, that's the whole point.
At that point (at the first point it's free, you might say) rip it.
They might make it difficult, but you can always replace the actual audio/video generation with recording.
There is no way to encrypt the audio/video.
Then, if there is any open format that is universally (or almost universally) supported, the content is no longer protected.The only ways (I can imagine) to protect this content are things like:* neural connection with encryption, when removing the chip from the brain is impossible (obviously far beyond modern technology, not to mention moral issues)* players check online for copyright of content (beyond modern technology, won't work without internet connection, privacy issues)Or similar crazy ideas.
It will take many years before they'll get to something of this sort.All this apply only to non-interactive content, of course, because in interactive content you might encrypt (using hardware encryption) the computation, then it won't leak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654224</id>
	<title>Misleading summary</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1262703960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary is slightly misleading. Yes, it's DRM but it's an effort by the industry to make it so that content purchased in one way (eg. on your PS3) will work on a multitude of other devices which may or may not be owned by you.</p><p>I dislike DRM as much as the next Slashdotter, but this is actually laxer than the current DRM employed on digital content distribution - where you're locked into the device you download it to and the possibility to popping over to a friends house to watch something is minimal.</p><p> <i>(side note: of course this will fail)</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is slightly misleading .
Yes , it 's DRM but it 's an effort by the industry to make it so that content purchased in one way ( eg .
on your PS3 ) will work on a multitude of other devices which may or may not be owned by you.I dislike DRM as much as the next Slashdotter , but this is actually laxer than the current DRM employed on digital content distribution - where you 're locked into the device you download it to and the possibility to popping over to a friends house to watch something is minimal .
( side note : of course this will fail )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is slightly misleading.
Yes, it's DRM but it's an effort by the industry to make it so that content purchased in one way (eg.
on your PS3) will work on a multitude of other devices which may or may not be owned by you.I dislike DRM as much as the next Slashdotter, but this is actually laxer than the current DRM employed on digital content distribution - where you're locked into the device you download it to and the possibility to popping over to a friends house to watch something is minimal.
(side note: of course this will fail) </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</id>
	<title>I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now in order to get lynched I'm going to start with a statement</p><p><i>I don't care if they put these restrictions on</i></p><p>But I'll add a caveat...</p><p><i>As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single payment</i></p><p>My ideal these days would be to just buy a license (and I use the term deliberately) and for them to store the content in their cloud and for me (in a Steam type way) to then be able to activate that content on my various different devices.  If I could get rid of all my DVDs and have a single, secure, backed up place where my devices can connect and download the content for local playing then I'd be much happier.</p><p>Otherwise I'm not playing.     I don't want physical copies, I want stuff on disk and in the cloud, and if they don't do it for me then I'm already doing it for myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now in order to get lynched I 'm going to start with a statementI do n't care if they put these restrictions onBut I 'll add a caveat...As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single paymentMy ideal these days would be to just buy a license ( and I use the term deliberately ) and for them to store the content in their cloud and for me ( in a Steam type way ) to then be able to activate that content on my various different devices .
If I could get rid of all my DVDs and have a single , secure , backed up place where my devices can connect and download the content for local playing then I 'd be much happier.Otherwise I 'm not playing .
I do n't want physical copies , I want stuff on disk and in the cloud , and if they do n't do it for me then I 'm already doing it for myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now in order to get lynched I'm going to start with a statementI don't care if they put these restrictions onBut I'll add a caveat...As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single paymentMy ideal these days would be to just buy a license (and I use the term deliberately) and for them to store the content in their cloud and for me (in a Steam type way) to then be able to activate that content on my various different devices.
If I could get rid of all my DVDs and have a single, secure, backed up place where my devices can connect and download the content for local playing then I'd be much happier.Otherwise I'm not playing.
I don't want physical copies, I want stuff on disk and in the cloud, and if they don't do it for me then I'm already doing it for myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30659884</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>arketh</author>
	<datestamp>1262683560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They say they want to offer more movie viewing options, like being able to stream a HD movie to your house on the same day it is released in theaters.  They won't do this now because it is too easy to copy that data.

So they claim is that very strong DRM will mean we can watch what we want when we want it.  That could lead to some new hardware sales!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They say they want to offer more movie viewing options , like being able to stream a HD movie to your house on the same day it is released in theaters .
They wo n't do this now because it is too easy to copy that data .
So they claim is that very strong DRM will mean we can watch what we want when we want it .
That could lead to some new hardware sales !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They say they want to offer more movie viewing options, like being able to stream a HD movie to your house on the same day it is released in theaters.
They won't do this now because it is too easy to copy that data.
So they claim is that very strong DRM will mean we can watch what we want when we want it.
That could lead to some new hardware sales!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658696</id>
	<title>Re:Plays for Sure!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262721300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Annnnnnd one more: first sale doctrine and <strong>right of resale</strong>, as it applies to all things I buy, is damaged in cases of any software or game that requires "activation."  That is why I purchase absolutely <strong>nothing</strong> that requires "activation."  They don't consider it a real purchase, so I won't consider it either.  Many DRM schemes fail in this manner as well.</p><p>Going deeper into the copyright wars... The <strong>legal</strong> concept of copyright is that the holder gains exclusivity of copying <strong>for a limited time.</strong>  If they attempt to limit copying permanently and forever, technologically, via DRM or other bastardizations of digital information, then they, first and foremost, have made that information <strong>something outside of the definition of copyrighted material.</strong></p><p>The advent of widespread digital copying and distributing capabilities among the regular population has set many in the content production industries into a frenzy of attempting to fight the new reality.  Nothing has changed about right and wrong.  If you tell me a joke today, I am 100\% free to tell that joke to someone else; such is the nature of information.  Now that it has scaled up, some business models can either change, or some very large businesses can continue to fight a losing battle with their legal teams, lobbyists, senators, etc... at great expense, gaining nothing but extreme distrust and disdain from a growing segment of the population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Annnnnnd one more : first sale doctrine and right of resale , as it applies to all things I buy , is damaged in cases of any software or game that requires " activation .
" That is why I purchase absolutely nothing that requires " activation .
" They do n't consider it a real purchase , so I wo n't consider it either .
Many DRM schemes fail in this manner as well.Going deeper into the copyright wars... The legal concept of copyright is that the holder gains exclusivity of copying for a limited time .
If they attempt to limit copying permanently and forever , technologically , via DRM or other bastardizations of digital information , then they , first and foremost , have made that information something outside of the definition of copyrighted material.The advent of widespread digital copying and distributing capabilities among the regular population has set many in the content production industries into a frenzy of attempting to fight the new reality .
Nothing has changed about right and wrong .
If you tell me a joke today , I am 100 \ % free to tell that joke to someone else ; such is the nature of information .
Now that it has scaled up , some business models can either change , or some very large businesses can continue to fight a losing battle with their legal teams , lobbyists , senators , etc... at great expense , gaining nothing but extreme distrust and disdain from a growing segment of the population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Annnnnnd one more: first sale doctrine and right of resale, as it applies to all things I buy, is damaged in cases of any software or game that requires "activation.
"  That is why I purchase absolutely nothing that requires "activation.
"  They don't consider it a real purchase, so I won't consider it either.
Many DRM schemes fail in this manner as well.Going deeper into the copyright wars... The legal concept of copyright is that the holder gains exclusivity of copying for a limited time.
If they attempt to limit copying permanently and forever, technologically, via DRM or other bastardizations of digital information, then they, first and foremost, have made that information something outside of the definition of copyrighted material.The advent of widespread digital copying and distributing capabilities among the regular population has set many in the content production industries into a frenzy of attempting to fight the new reality.
Nothing has changed about right and wrong.
If you tell me a joke today, I am 100\% free to tell that joke to someone else; such is the nature of information.
Now that it has scaled up, some business models can either change, or some very large businesses can continue to fight a losing battle with their legal teams, lobbyists, senators, etc... at great expense, gaining nothing but extreme distrust and disdain from a growing segment of the population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654156</id>
	<title>Depends on how big</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if ICANN goes under? The internet goes down. Many things we rely on depend on some company staying up.</p><p>*If* there's a multi-major-corporation committment to a central repository (which the article discusses), then the only real issues may be of posterirty, or deleberate revocation of rights.</p><p>If, on the other hand, individual vendors do their own validation: then as the Slashdot snippit suggests, we are at the mercy of the corporate whims, as was seen with so many DRM music sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if ICANN goes under ?
The internet goes down .
Many things we rely on depend on some company staying up .
* If * there 's a multi-major-corporation committment to a central repository ( which the article discusses ) , then the only real issues may be of posterirty , or deleberate revocation of rights.If , on the other hand , individual vendors do their own validation : then as the Slashdot snippit suggests , we are at the mercy of the corporate whims , as was seen with so many DRM music sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if ICANN goes under?
The internet goes down.
Many things we rely on depend on some company staying up.
*If* there's a multi-major-corporation committment to a central repository (which the article discusses), then the only real issues may be of posterirty, or deleberate revocation of rights.If, on the other hand, individual vendors do their own validation: then as the Slashdot snippit suggests, we are at the mercy of the corporate whims, as was seen with so many DRM music sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654982</id>
	<title>Internet + DRM</title>
	<author>Bobberly</author>
	<datestamp>1262707800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Digital copies of media is great.  DRM that requires any central storage = bad.  I think these folks need to take a trip to some remote location and see how difficult it is to get any form of Internet connection.

I can see the trip to the cabin in the woods now.  Lil' Johnny brought his movie collection but sees "Check Internet Connection" on the screen since the nearest cell tower or broadband hookup is 50+ miles away.

Digital rights need to be transferable and usable without any 3rd party dependencies.  Learn from DIVX people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital copies of media is great .
DRM that requires any central storage = bad .
I think these folks need to take a trip to some remote location and see how difficult it is to get any form of Internet connection .
I can see the trip to the cabin in the woods now .
Lil ' Johnny brought his movie collection but sees " Check Internet Connection " on the screen since the nearest cell tower or broadband hookup is 50 + miles away .
Digital rights need to be transferable and usable without any 3rd party dependencies .
Learn from DIVX people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digital copies of media is great.
DRM that requires any central storage = bad.
I think these folks need to take a trip to some remote location and see how difficult it is to get any form of Internet connection.
I can see the trip to the cabin in the woods now.
Lil' Johnny brought his movie collection but sees "Check Internet Connection" on the screen since the nearest cell tower or broadband hookup is 50+ miles away.
Digital rights need to be transferable and usable without any 3rd party dependencies.
Learn from DIVX people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30663132</id>
	<title>Awesome!! Where's my wallet? ...</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1262697300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another scheme to control content, embedded in hardware. What a fan-fucking-tastic idea.</p><p>People who just finished getting all HDCP-enabled can just go out and buy new stuff. The consumer is a conduit of money, and the consumer has more than enough laying around, being wasted on stuff we don't sell, so we'll just compel him<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ONCE AGAIN<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to buy a bunch of new stuff. LIke, every four years. For life.</p><p>Clueless Movie Mogul; to Boardroom:<br>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Because this new scheme is so today, and our old scheme is so yesterday. Oh, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you won't believe what we are going to come up with tomorrow! I'm so EXCITED!! I can't say much, but it's coming in 2013, we haven't even mentioned it to anyone yet, so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Sworn To Secrecy, Everybody<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the consumer will be able to watch movies. Yeah, you heard it right, folks! Actually watch them! Once they buy them in the proposed unique encrypted new digital format, of course. And get some new hardware, of course. Plus we still gotta agree on a few details of the standard we're proposing. Plus<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another scheme to control content , embedded in hardware .
What a fan-fucking-tastic idea.People who just finished getting all HDCP-enabled can just go out and buy new stuff .
The consumer is a conduit of money , and the consumer has more than enough laying around , being wasted on stuff we do n't sell , so we 'll just compel him ... ONCE AGAIN ... to buy a bunch of new stuff .
LIke , every four years .
For life.Clueless Movie Mogul ; to Boardroom : " ... Because this new scheme is so today , and our old scheme is so yesterday .
Oh , and ... you wo n't believe what we are going to come up with tomorrow !
I 'm so EXCITED ! !
I ca n't say much , but it 's coming in 2013 , we have n't even mentioned it to anyone yet , so ... Sworn To Secrecy , Everybody ... but ... the consumer will be able to watch movies .
Yeah , you heard it right , folks !
Actually watch them !
Once they buy them in the proposed unique encrypted new digital format , of course .
And get some new hardware , of course .
Plus we still got ta agree on a few details of the standard we 're proposing .
Plus ... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another scheme to control content, embedded in hardware.
What a fan-fucking-tastic idea.People who just finished getting all HDCP-enabled can just go out and buy new stuff.
The consumer is a conduit of money, and the consumer has more than enough laying around, being wasted on stuff we don't sell, so we'll just compel him ... ONCE AGAIN ... to buy a bunch of new stuff.
LIke, every four years.
For life.Clueless Movie Mogul; to Boardroom:" ... Because this new scheme is so today, and our old scheme is so yesterday.
Oh, and ... you won't believe what we are going to come up with tomorrow!
I'm so EXCITED!!
I can't say much, but it's coming in 2013, we haven't even mentioned it to anyone yet, so ... Sworn To Secrecy, Everybody ... but ... the consumer will be able to watch movies.
Yeah, you heard it right, folks!
Actually watch them!
Once they buy them in the proposed unique encrypted new digital format, of course.
And get some new hardware, of course.
Plus we still gotta agree on a few details of the standard we're proposing.
Plus ... "</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30668494</id>
	<title>DVD-CSS is not encryption</title>
	<author>assert(0)</author>
	<datestamp>1262787660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's data scrambling.</p><p>Encryption is when the key is sooper sekrit, get it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's data scrambling.Encryption is when the key is sooper sekrit , get it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's data scrambling.Encryption is when the key is sooper sekrit, get it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655132</id>
	<title>Re:Again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262708520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think it's just part of being lazy. Even we consumers want to watch what we want when we want, although most of us are willing to spend the money acquired during hard work in exchange for that benefit. In fact, most of us work in a fire and forget fashon, we work, company takes work, pays us salary, and makes infinite profit from work. But it becomes clearer and clearer that all businesses want is the free lunch. Less costs and higher prices. Infinite profit...</p><p>I wonder how long that will last...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think it 's just part of being lazy .
Even we consumers want to watch what we want when we want , although most of us are willing to spend the money acquired during hard work in exchange for that benefit .
In fact , most of us work in a fire and forget fashon , we work , company takes work , pays us salary , and makes infinite profit from work .
But it becomes clearer and clearer that all businesses want is the free lunch .
Less costs and higher prices .
Infinite profit...I wonder how long that will last.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think it's just part of being lazy.
Even we consumers want to watch what we want when we want, although most of us are willing to spend the money acquired during hard work in exchange for that benefit.
In fact, most of us work in a fire and forget fashon, we work, company takes work, pays us salary, and makes infinite profit from work.
But it becomes clearer and clearer that all businesses want is the free lunch.
Less costs and higher prices.
Infinite profit...I wonder how long that will last...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30667038</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262772240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes it's loss of control what they fear, loss of monopoly, competition and free market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it 's loss of control what they fear , loss of monopoly , competition and free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it's loss of control what they fear, loss of monopoly, competition and free market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654412</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1262705100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>May be that is their intention. May be they want us to watch it once and throw it away. Let see what supports this...<br> <br>

DRMed content is not valid for ever - Check<br>
Not all devices can play the content - Check<br>
Its Illegal to attempt to break DRM - Check</htmltext>
<tokenext>May be that is their intention .
May be they want us to watch it once and throw it away .
Let see what supports this.. . DRMed content is not valid for ever - Check Not all devices can play the content - Check Its Illegal to attempt to break DRM - Check</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May be that is their intention.
May be they want us to watch it once and throw it away.
Let see what supports this... 

DRMed content is not valid for ever - Check
Not all devices can play the content - Check
Its Illegal to attempt to break DRM - Check</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654176</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1262703720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather than looking for new and better ways to make money, they would rather do their damnedest to try to prop up their old ways of doing things, doing vast quantities of damage unto themselves and the consumers- and in the end, capitulating and finding a way to make good money in the new scheme of things.</p><p>They did it with VCRs and audio cassettes.</p><p>They can do it with digital distribution- they've just got to quit trying to control things the way they're used to.  It no longer works well and they can't figure out they've got to change, right along with their customer base.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than looking for new and better ways to make money , they would rather do their damnedest to try to prop up their old ways of doing things , doing vast quantities of damage unto themselves and the consumers- and in the end , capitulating and finding a way to make good money in the new scheme of things.They did it with VCRs and audio cassettes.They can do it with digital distribution- they 've just got to quit trying to control things the way they 're used to .
It no longer works well and they ca n't figure out they 've got to change , right along with their customer base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than looking for new and better ways to make money, they would rather do their damnedest to try to prop up their old ways of doing things, doing vast quantities of damage unto themselves and the consumers- and in the end, capitulating and finding a way to make good money in the new scheme of things.They did it with VCRs and audio cassettes.They can do it with digital distribution- they've just got to quit trying to control things the way they're used to.
It no longer works well and they can't figure out they've got to change, right along with their customer base.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654422</id>
	<title>Comapnies shutting down is always a risk</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1262705160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With movies, I would not buy a digital copy.  A company shuts down or turns off its servers, and all of that stuff you bought goes away, which would not be fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With movies , I would not buy a digital copy .
A company shuts down or turns off its servers , and all of that stuff you bought goes away , which would not be fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With movies, I would not buy a digital copy.
A company shuts down or turns off its servers, and all of that stuff you bought goes away, which would not be fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654854</id>
	<title>Are they setting up themselves for dos attacks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262707140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I'm wondering if the network connection is required then aren't they making themselves best possible target on the internet for terrorist, blackmailers and so on.</p><p>I mean its just not hackers who'd like see them fail. Say the carrier says sorry but we don't let bit locker trough because it eats up our channels...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I 'm wondering if the network connection is required then are n't they making themselves best possible target on the internet for terrorist , blackmailers and so on.I mean its just not hackers who 'd like see them fail .
Say the carrier says sorry but we do n't let bit locker trough because it eats up our channels.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I'm wondering if the network connection is required then aren't they making themselves best possible target on the internet for terrorist, blackmailers and so on.I mean its just not hackers who'd like see them fail.
Say the carrier says sorry but we don't let bit locker trough because it eats up our channels...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655166</id>
	<title>And how many will be so dumb to buy this?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262708580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean you have to buy new hardware, just to get more disadvantages?<br>When everybody can already get it elsewhere, for free, with no disadvantages at all.<br>Yeah, that&rsquo;s gonna be a big seller! ^^</p><p>I mean, how twisted can one&rsquo;s reality be? Reminds me of North Koreans, who are brainwashed to think that if they touch something with a American flag on it, that their hands will literally rot off. (I saw an interview with someone who gets people out of there. Wanna know where they flee to? China! Because it&rsquo;s so much better.&rdquo;(TM))</p><p>Or schizophrenic people whose logic and inner model stops being based on reality.</p><p>But I tend to see the good in in: They will go down even faster. Yay.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>(Oh, and they will go waaayyy down. Where it&rsquo;s hot and sulfury<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean you have to buy new hardware , just to get more disadvantages ? When everybody can already get it elsewhere , for free , with no disadvantages at all.Yeah , that    s gon na be a big seller !
^ ^ I mean , how twisted can one    s reality be ?
Reminds me of North Koreans , who are brainwashed to think that if they touch something with a American flag on it , that their hands will literally rot off .
( I saw an interview with someone who gets people out of there .
Wan na know where they flee to ?
China ! Because it    s so much better.    ( TM ) ) Or schizophrenic people whose logic and inner model stops being based on reality.But I tend to see the good in in : They will go down even faster .
Yay. : ) ( Oh , and they will go waaayyy down .
Where it    s hot and sulfury ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean you have to buy new hardware, just to get more disadvantages?When everybody can already get it elsewhere, for free, with no disadvantages at all.Yeah, that’s gonna be a big seller!
^^I mean, how twisted can one’s reality be?
Reminds me of North Koreans, who are brainwashed to think that if they touch something with a American flag on it, that their hands will literally rot off.
(I saw an interview with someone who gets people out of there.
Wanna know where they flee to?
China! Because it’s so much better.”(TM))Or schizophrenic people whose logic and inner model stops being based on reality.But I tend to see the good in in: They will go down even faster.
Yay. :)(Oh, and they will go waaayyy down.
Where it’s hot and sulfury ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655588</id>
	<title>So they've finally developed an unbeatable DRM?</title>
	<author>scourfish</author>
	<datestamp>1262710320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh wait, that's right, they probably haven't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait , that 's right , they probably have n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait, that's right, they probably haven't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656354</id>
	<title>Clue Stick, Meet Slashdot</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1262713080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of you are missing the entire point of DRM.  In corporate entertainment world, the thinking is this is the *only* thing that will save their industry.</p><p>1. Media conglomerates extract their exorbitant rent by controlling distribution.  Anything that exerts more control over distribution is a project worth investing in.</p><p>2. Consumers are already used to the idea of paying for crippled content.  Subscriber-based TV?  Blu-Ray?  Kindle?</p><p>3. This is the only way to induce scarcity.  Which is a fancy way of saying increase prices and increase viewing restrictions.  The industry sees a missed opportunity to monetize each viewing in a DVD sale.</p><p>This project is a 'go' and ordinary consumers will buy it.  Most of you are already on Blu-ray right?  Those DRM handcuffs fit comfortably.  This project, or another like it, is next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of you are missing the entire point of DRM .
In corporate entertainment world , the thinking is this is the * only * thing that will save their industry.1 .
Media conglomerates extract their exorbitant rent by controlling distribution .
Anything that exerts more control over distribution is a project worth investing in.2 .
Consumers are already used to the idea of paying for crippled content .
Subscriber-based TV ?
Blu-Ray ? Kindle ? 3 .
This is the only way to induce scarcity .
Which is a fancy way of saying increase prices and increase viewing restrictions .
The industry sees a missed opportunity to monetize each viewing in a DVD sale.This project is a 'go ' and ordinary consumers will buy it .
Most of you are already on Blu-ray right ?
Those DRM handcuffs fit comfortably .
This project , or another like it , is next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of you are missing the entire point of DRM.
In corporate entertainment world, the thinking is this is the *only* thing that will save their industry.1.
Media conglomerates extract their exorbitant rent by controlling distribution.
Anything that exerts more control over distribution is a project worth investing in.2.
Consumers are already used to the idea of paying for crippled content.
Subscriber-based TV?
Blu-Ray?  Kindle?3.
This is the only way to induce scarcity.
Which is a fancy way of saying increase prices and increase viewing restrictions.
The industry sees a missed opportunity to monetize each viewing in a DVD sale.This project is a 'go' and ordinary consumers will buy it.
Most of you are already on Blu-ray right?
Those DRM handcuffs fit comfortably.
This project, or another like it, is next.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30680120</id>
	<title>Re:You're paying for the content , not the format</title>
	<author>xiong.chiamiov</author>
	<datestamp>1262856780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even as an iTunes user I'll admit that my purchases there are about the convenience of having everything easily searchable and of a known quality.  Not having to deal with shady torrent sites, spending hours looking for something, and then discovering that it's a bad rip, fake, etc, it more than worth $0.99 per song to me.</p></div><p>Although, of course, certain torrent sites can be better at providing consistent high-quality music files than official sources; you just have to know where to look.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even as an iTunes user I 'll admit that my purchases there are about the convenience of having everything easily searchable and of a known quality .
Not having to deal with shady torrent sites , spending hours looking for something , and then discovering that it 's a bad rip , fake , etc , it more than worth $ 0.99 per song to me.Although , of course , certain torrent sites can be better at providing consistent high-quality music files than official sources ; you just have to know where to look .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even as an iTunes user I'll admit that my purchases there are about the convenience of having everything easily searchable and of a known quality.
Not having to deal with shady torrent sites, spending hours looking for something, and then discovering that it's a bad rip, fake, etc, it more than worth $0.99 per song to me.Although, of course, certain torrent sites can be better at providing consistent high-quality music files than official sources; you just have to know where to look.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657514</id>
	<title>Re:Again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262716860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just more bullshit. I'm surprised they aren't trotting out DIVX discs again. They just don't learn. I don't bother with downloads except as rentals for something I want to watch ONCE, if I like it enough to watch it more than that then <i>I want to buy a physical disc</i>, not some dodgy download that might get deleted or lost! Them, them, FUCK them with an axe handle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just more bullshit .
I 'm surprised they are n't trotting out DIVX discs again .
They just do n't learn .
I do n't bother with downloads except as rentals for something I want to watch ONCE , if I like it enough to watch it more than that then I want to buy a physical disc , not some dodgy download that might get deleted or lost !
Them , them , FUCK them with an axe handle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just more bullshit.
I'm surprised they aren't trotting out DIVX discs again.
They just don't learn.
I don't bother with downloads except as rentals for something I want to watch ONCE, if I like it enough to watch it more than that then I want to buy a physical disc, not some dodgy download that might get deleted or lost!
Them, them, FUCK them with an axe handle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656276</id>
	<title>Here comes another one, just like the other one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any bets on how long it will take to crack this ill-considered DRM scheme? My guess is certainly less than 6 months from release. Why so long? Because they are likely using more robust encryption and it will take awhile to find the holes in it. In any case, the studios will still have to release content on DVDs for a long time, and that means it is less than 1 hour from release to wide availability on the internet... So, what does this buy the studios, content creators, actors, et al? More $$? NOT! Wider distribution of their work? Right... Can't get wider than universal access, which is what we pretty much have now. Such narrow-minded, short-sighted mavens of moronity should just shoot themselves and put us all out of their misery!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any bets on how long it will take to crack this ill-considered DRM scheme ?
My guess is certainly less than 6 months from release .
Why so long ?
Because they are likely using more robust encryption and it will take awhile to find the holes in it .
In any case , the studios will still have to release content on DVDs for a long time , and that means it is less than 1 hour from release to wide availability on the internet... So , what does this buy the studios , content creators , actors , et al ?
More $ $ ?
NOT ! Wider distribution of their work ?
Right... Ca n't get wider than universal access , which is what we pretty much have now .
Such narrow-minded , short-sighted mavens of moronity should just shoot themselves and put us all out of their misery !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any bets on how long it will take to crack this ill-considered DRM scheme?
My guess is certainly less than 6 months from release.
Why so long?
Because they are likely using more robust encryption and it will take awhile to find the holes in it.
In any case, the studios will still have to release content on DVDs for a long time, and that means it is less than 1 hour from release to wide availability on the internet... So, what does this buy the studios, content creators, actors, et al?
More $$?
NOT! Wider distribution of their work?
Right... Can't get wider than universal access, which is what we pretty much have now.
Such narrow-minded, short-sighted mavens of moronity should just shoot themselves and put us all out of their misery!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655368</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1262709480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just want a disc that *NEVER* tells me "that operation is not allowed here." It's why I rent only. I rented one just recently, a new release, where you could *not* skip the ads up front. You could FF but not go to the next chapter mark. Pure teh evil!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just want a disc that * NEVER * tells me " that operation is not allowed here .
" It 's why I rent only .
I rented one just recently , a new release , where you could * not * skip the ads up front .
You could FF but not go to the next chapter mark .
Pure teh evil !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just want a disc that *NEVER* tells me "that operation is not allowed here.
" It's why I rent only.
I rented one just recently, a new release, where you could *not* skip the ads up front.
You could FF but not go to the next chapter mark.
Pure teh evil!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656892</id>
	<title>Re:Plays for Sure!</title>
	<author>DanQuixote</author>
	<datestamp>1262714880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In related news, Toyota announces a new service, Toy-Ownership!</p><p>Here's how it works. Instead of the outdated, risky practice of taking the keys home where they can be lost or stolen, the dealer takes care of the keys for you! Imagine the convenience! Since many consumers steal things, and to eliminate the risk of your brand new vehicle being stolen, we will simply sell all new vehicles this way. Should you need to start the vehicle again after you get home, simply call the dealer, and after verifying that you are who you say you are via our new Protection Integrity Telephone Assistance (PITA), we will remotely start the car for you.</p><p>No more bulky pockets, no more whistling for your key-chain, join the new Toy-Ownership program today!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , Toyota announces a new service , Toy-Ownership ! Here 's how it works .
Instead of the outdated , risky practice of taking the keys home where they can be lost or stolen , the dealer takes care of the keys for you !
Imagine the convenience !
Since many consumers steal things , and to eliminate the risk of your brand new vehicle being stolen , we will simply sell all new vehicles this way .
Should you need to start the vehicle again after you get home , simply call the dealer , and after verifying that you are who you say you are via our new Protection Integrity Telephone Assistance ( PITA ) , we will remotely start the car for you.No more bulky pockets , no more whistling for your key-chain , join the new Toy-Ownership program today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, Toyota announces a new service, Toy-Ownership!Here's how it works.
Instead of the outdated, risky practice of taking the keys home where they can be lost or stolen, the dealer takes care of the keys for you!
Imagine the convenience!
Since many consumers steal things, and to eliminate the risk of your brand new vehicle being stolen, we will simply sell all new vehicles this way.
Should you need to start the vehicle again after you get home, simply call the dealer, and after verifying that you are who you say you are via our new Protection Integrity Telephone Assistance (PITA), we will remotely start the car for you.No more bulky pockets, no more whistling for your key-chain, join the new Toy-Ownership program today!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658076</id>
	<title>Re:The Hangover</title>
	<author>herring0</author>
	<datestamp>1262718780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Offtopic, there is a great parody to the FBI warnings on the intro of "Moss and the German" on season 2 of The IT Crowd.  If you haven't already seen it then I'll say that it gave me a good laugh about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Offtopic , there is a great parody to the FBI warnings on the intro of " Moss and the German " on season 2 of The IT Crowd .
If you have n't already seen it then I 'll say that it gave me a good laugh about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offtopic, there is a great parody to the FBI warnings on the intro of "Moss and the German" on season 2 of The IT Crowd.
If you haven't already seen it then I'll say that it gave me a good laugh about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30665214</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1262709660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>While I approve of piracy, don't you think it's naive to think that the torrented/pirated version is less likely to install malware (of any sort) than the paid for version?<br><br>About the same, if you ask me.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I approve of piracy , do n't you think it 's naive to think that the torrented/pirated version is less likely to install malware ( of any sort ) than the paid for version ? About the same , if you ask me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I approve of piracy, don't you think it's naive to think that the torrented/pirated version is less likely to install malware (of any sort) than the paid for version?About the same, if you ask me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202</id>
	<title>DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>DRM only hurts the legitimate customers. The people pirating get around it. The content owners spend millions of dollars (if not more) to create better encryption that is cracked in months and is then obsolete to try and keep pirates from doing their thing (which never works) but the only thing they succeed in doing is pissing off their actual customers.<br> <br>

I was at home for christmas and wanted to watch a Blu-Ray movie on my laptop and output it to my parent's HDTV. Connected up an HDMI cable and PowerDVD 9 said it could only run on the primary display. I disabled the laptop display and tried again; now it said that the display connected was incompatible or some such nonsense (DRM non-compliant). If I had just pirated my movie, I wouldn't have had a problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM only hurts the legitimate customers .
The people pirating get around it .
The content owners spend millions of dollars ( if not more ) to create better encryption that is cracked in months and is then obsolete to try and keep pirates from doing their thing ( which never works ) but the only thing they succeed in doing is pissing off their actual customers .
I was at home for christmas and wanted to watch a Blu-Ray movie on my laptop and output it to my parent 's HDTV .
Connected up an HDMI cable and PowerDVD 9 said it could only run on the primary display .
I disabled the laptop display and tried again ; now it said that the display connected was incompatible or some such nonsense ( DRM non-compliant ) .
If I had just pirated my movie , I would n't have had a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM only hurts the legitimate customers.
The people pirating get around it.
The content owners spend millions of dollars (if not more) to create better encryption that is cracked in months and is then obsolete to try and keep pirates from doing their thing (which never works) but the only thing they succeed in doing is pissing off their actual customers.
I was at home for christmas and wanted to watch a Blu-Ray movie on my laptop and output it to my parent's HDTV.
Connected up an HDMI cable and PowerDVD 9 said it could only run on the primary display.
I disabled the laptop display and tried again; now it said that the display connected was incompatible or some such nonsense (DRM non-compliant).
If I had just pirated my movie, I wouldn't have had a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654988</id>
	<title>Trust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262707860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And we are supposed to trust these companies with a detailed history of my "digital rights"!?!? They can not even protect their own content, let alone my personally identifiable information.</p><p>If this is the price that we will be required to pay, then I will pirate everything I can get my hands on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And we are supposed to trust these companies with a detailed history of my " digital rights " ! ? ! ?
They can not even protect their own content , let alone my personally identifiable information.If this is the price that we will be required to pay , then I will pirate everything I can get my hands on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we are supposed to trust these companies with a detailed history of my "digital rights"!?!?
They can not even protect their own content, let alone my personally identifiable information.If this is the price that we will be required to pay, then I will pirate everything I can get my hands on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180</id>
	<title>Plays for Sure!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;Consumers shouldn&rsquo;t have to know what&rsquo;s inside,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;They should just know it will play.&rdquo;</p><p>Yeah.  Except when it doesn't.  No internet connection?  No movie for you.  Rights locker company hit by power failure?  No movies for anyone.<br>If I "buy" a movie, I expect it to play whenever and wherever I want to watch it...in an airplane, on a boat or in a cave; and without the requirement for internet connectivity or an external "permission" server.  I'm fine with those constraints if I'm renting a movie online, but purchase, at a higher price, should mean reduced restrictions on transport and use, in addition to the rights to play multiple times.</p><p>And let's not even think about the "oops, we have decided to discontinue this DRM scheme in favor of a new, incompatible one" scenario, which obsoletes your player and movie collection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   Consumers shouldn    t have to know what    s inside ,    he said .
   They should just know it will play.    Yeah .
Except when it does n't .
No internet connection ?
No movie for you .
Rights locker company hit by power failure ?
No movies for anyone.If I " buy " a movie , I expect it to play whenever and wherever I want to watch it...in an airplane , on a boat or in a cave ; and without the requirement for internet connectivity or an external " permission " server .
I 'm fine with those constraints if I 'm renting a movie online , but purchase , at a higher price , should mean reduced restrictions on transport and use , in addition to the rights to play multiple times.And let 's not even think about the " oops , we have decided to discontinue this DRM scheme in favor of a new , incompatible one " scenario , which obsoletes your player and movie collection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“Consumers shouldn’t have to know what’s inside,” he said.
“They should just know it will play.”Yeah.
Except when it doesn't.
No internet connection?
No movie for you.
Rights locker company hit by power failure?
No movies for anyone.If I "buy" a movie, I expect it to play whenever and wherever I want to watch it...in an airplane, on a boat or in a cave; and without the requirement for internet connectivity or an external "permission" server.
I'm fine with those constraints if I'm renting a movie online, but purchase, at a higher price, should mean reduced restrictions on transport and use, in addition to the rights to play multiple times.And let's not even think about the "oops, we have decided to discontinue this DRM scheme in favor of a new, incompatible one" scenario, which obsoletes your player and movie collection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654904</id>
	<title>Re:Plays for Sure!</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1262707380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And let's not even think about the "oops, we have decided to discontinue this DRM scheme in favor of a new, incompatible one" scenario, which obsoletes your player and movie collection.</p></div><p>Simply obsoleting data formats is bad enough -- consider vinyl, 8track, cassette, compact disc, DVD... I don't know if it was a line from a movie or comic, but I was just thinking of a character who says, "Looks like I've got to buy the White Album... <em>again.</em>".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And let 's not even think about the " oops , we have decided to discontinue this DRM scheme in favor of a new , incompatible one " scenario , which obsoletes your player and movie collection.Simply obsoleting data formats is bad enough -- consider vinyl , 8track , cassette , compact disc , DVD... I do n't know if it was a line from a movie or comic , but I was just thinking of a character who says , " Looks like I 've got to buy the White Album.. .
again. " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And let's not even think about the "oops, we have decided to discontinue this DRM scheme in favor of a new, incompatible one" scenario, which obsoletes your player and movie collection.Simply obsoleting data formats is bad enough -- consider vinyl, 8track, cassette, compact disc, DVD... I don't know if it was a line from a movie or comic, but I was just thinking of a character who says, "Looks like I've got to buy the White Album...
again.".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654630</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1262706240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...except ignoring DRM doesn't do any harm to anyone.</p><p>It doesn't deprive the state of revenue.<br>It does not increase the chance I will KILL someone.<br>It does not require me to ignore the plight of my fellow man.</p><p>All ignoring DRM does is make you something other than a 1984 style floormat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...except ignoring DRM does n't do any harm to anyone.It does n't deprive the state of revenue.It does not increase the chance I will KILL someone.It does not require me to ignore the plight of my fellow man.All ignoring DRM does is make you something other than a 1984 style floormat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...except ignoring DRM doesn't do any harm to anyone.It doesn't deprive the state of revenue.It does not increase the chance I will KILL someone.It does not require me to ignore the plight of my fellow man.All ignoring DRM does is make you something other than a 1984 style floormat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654296</id>
	<title>I have a better solution that still uses...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262704380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the same system!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.encryptionKeys {display:none}</p><p>They must have been using visibility:hidden which is less secure because you can still see that it is there, you just can't see the content very clearly.<br>Those silly, silly people.  That's what happens when you don't stay up-to-date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the same system !
.encryptionKeys { display : none } They must have been using visibility : hidden which is less secure because you can still see that it is there , you just ca n't see the content very clearly.Those silly , silly people .
That 's what happens when you do n't stay up-to-date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the same system!
.encryptionKeys {display:none}They must have been using visibility:hidden which is less secure because you can still see that it is there, you just can't see the content very clearly.Those silly, silly people.
That's what happens when you don't stay up-to-date.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655430</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262709720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know why you should care?</p><p>Because this will take them down even faster!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Which means the artists will become more free, dealing directly with you, instead of criminal companies. Which means better art, cheaper art, and better incomes for the artists (who now get ripped off majorly by Hollywood accounting).</p><p>I think you want that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know why you should care ? Because this will take them down even faster !
: ) Which means the artists will become more free , dealing directly with you , instead of criminal companies .
Which means better art , cheaper art , and better incomes for the artists ( who now get ripped off majorly by Hollywood accounting ) .I think you want that .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know why you should care?Because this will take them down even faster!
:)Which means the artists will become more free, dealing directly with you, instead of criminal companies.
Which means better art, cheaper art, and better incomes for the artists (who now get ripped off majorly by Hollywood accounting).I think you want that.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656500</id>
	<title>you can't punish the good</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262713740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for what the bad do. no security restriction will stop the pirate, it will only frustrate the nonpirate, and turn them into pirates</p><p>if you lock me down geographically, if you put a sunset clause in my hardware, if i experience bugs emanating from your security faults, if my media is inaccessible in certain times/ places... all you do is convince me that the pirate material is more attractive, because it has no such restrictions</p><p>eventually, the question becomes, what am i paying for?</p><p>i'm paying for more restrictions. and that's it</p><p>the other guy, who is paying nothing, is getting the same material as me, without any restrictions</p><p>its a no brainer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for what the bad do .
no security restriction will stop the pirate , it will only frustrate the nonpirate , and turn them into piratesif you lock me down geographically , if you put a sunset clause in my hardware , if i experience bugs emanating from your security faults , if my media is inaccessible in certain times/ places... all you do is convince me that the pirate material is more attractive , because it has no such restrictionseventually , the question becomes , what am i paying for ? i 'm paying for more restrictions .
and that 's itthe other guy , who is paying nothing , is getting the same material as me , without any restrictionsits a no brainer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for what the bad do.
no security restriction will stop the pirate, it will only frustrate the nonpirate, and turn them into piratesif you lock me down geographically, if you put a sunset clause in my hardware, if i experience bugs emanating from your security faults, if my media is inaccessible in certain times/ places... all you do is convince me that the pirate material is more attractive, because it has no such restrictionseventually, the question becomes, what am i paying for?i'm paying for more restrictions.
and that's itthe other guy, who is paying nothing, is getting the same material as me, without any restrictionsits a no brainer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654488</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>spikesahead</author>
	<datestamp>1262705580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want high quality, unencrypted, unencumbered media.</p><p>You are attempting to compete against piracy, which can already provide me with the above, by offering me an inferior product at the cost of replacing my existing, fully functional hardware.</p><p>I did not purchase music online until Amazon MP3 came to town. Amazon MP3 actually fills my exact requirements, high quality, unencrypted, unencumbered media, and as such I have stopped pirating audio entirely and have instead been purchasing music again. It's worth the money to get a high quality instance of what I actually want, and includes an unexpected high value bonus; the album art in every file!</p><p>Amazon MP3 offers a superior product to that produced by piracy. Do the same for video and I will begin spending money on movies again, until that time I will continue to get what I want from the people willing to offer it; pirates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want high quality , unencrypted , unencumbered media.You are attempting to compete against piracy , which can already provide me with the above , by offering me an inferior product at the cost of replacing my existing , fully functional hardware.I did not purchase music online until Amazon MP3 came to town .
Amazon MP3 actually fills my exact requirements , high quality , unencrypted , unencumbered media , and as such I have stopped pirating audio entirely and have instead been purchasing music again .
It 's worth the money to get a high quality instance of what I actually want , and includes an unexpected high value bonus ; the album art in every file ! Amazon MP3 offers a superior product to that produced by piracy .
Do the same for video and I will begin spending money on movies again , until that time I will continue to get what I want from the people willing to offer it ; pirates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want high quality, unencrypted, unencumbered media.You are attempting to compete against piracy, which can already provide me with the above, by offering me an inferior product at the cost of replacing my existing, fully functional hardware.I did not purchase music online until Amazon MP3 came to town.
Amazon MP3 actually fills my exact requirements, high quality, unencrypted, unencumbered media, and as such I have stopped pirating audio entirely and have instead been purchasing music again.
It's worth the money to get a high quality instance of what I actually want, and includes an unexpected high value bonus; the album art in every file!Amazon MP3 offers a superior product to that produced by piracy.
Do the same for video and I will begin spending money on movies again, until that time I will continue to get what I want from the people willing to offer it; pirates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30664764</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262706840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>wanted to watch a Blu-Ray movie on my laptop and output it to my parent's HDTV. Connected up an HDMI cable</p></div><p>I'll stop you right there. Ditch the HDMI and use component cables instead. The picture quality is just as good and since it's analog only there's no digital garbage regarding rights and other bullshit riding with it. Why do you think the industry is once again hardcore lobbying Congress to enact an anti-analog output bill?</p><p>cheers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>wanted to watch a Blu-Ray movie on my laptop and output it to my parent 's HDTV .
Connected up an HDMI cableI 'll stop you right there .
Ditch the HDMI and use component cables instead .
The picture quality is just as good and since it 's analog only there 's no digital garbage regarding rights and other bullshit riding with it .
Why do you think the industry is once again hardcore lobbying Congress to enact an anti-analog output bill ? cheers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wanted to watch a Blu-Ray movie on my laptop and output it to my parent's HDTV.
Connected up an HDMI cableI'll stop you right there.
Ditch the HDMI and use component cables instead.
The picture quality is just as good and since it's analog only there's no digital garbage regarding rights and other bullshit riding with it.
Why do you think the industry is once again hardcore lobbying Congress to enact an anti-analog output bill?cheers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655306</id>
	<title>Depends on the deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262709240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are upsides to an offering like this. It actually seems to work very similar to Steam.</p><p>Single sign-on, all content available on any (compatible) device anywere from the cloud.</p><p>However, if they limit resale/transfer of licenses (I'm sure they will), price has to come down considerably. If they attach other strings (playable only from US IP addresses etc, no way to play a downloaded file without active internet connection), price has to come down considerably.</p><p>I'm sure they'll attach all these strings and that weighs down the benefits (all stuff available from cloud anywhere, always "backed up") and still price it the same as a dvd (or worse, blu-ray), overpricing themselves from the market.</p><p>Heck, blu-ray is already doing that. The players are already cheap enough, but I see no reason to buy one because the movie discs themselves are overpriced compared to DVD. I could see paying 1-2$ premium for HD version, not +50-100\%...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are upsides to an offering like this .
It actually seems to work very similar to Steam.Single sign-on , all content available on any ( compatible ) device anywere from the cloud.However , if they limit resale/transfer of licenses ( I 'm sure they will ) , price has to come down considerably .
If they attach other strings ( playable only from US IP addresses etc , no way to play a downloaded file without active internet connection ) , price has to come down considerably.I 'm sure they 'll attach all these strings and that weighs down the benefits ( all stuff available from cloud anywhere , always " backed up " ) and still price it the same as a dvd ( or worse , blu-ray ) , overpricing themselves from the market.Heck , blu-ray is already doing that .
The players are already cheap enough , but I see no reason to buy one because the movie discs themselves are overpriced compared to DVD .
I could see paying 1-2 $ premium for HD version , not + 50-100 \ % .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are upsides to an offering like this.
It actually seems to work very similar to Steam.Single sign-on, all content available on any (compatible) device anywere from the cloud.However, if they limit resale/transfer of licenses (I'm sure they will), price has to come down considerably.
If they attach other strings (playable only from US IP addresses etc, no way to play a downloaded file without active internet connection), price has to come down considerably.I'm sure they'll attach all these strings and that weighs down the benefits (all stuff available from cloud anywhere, always "backed up") and still price it the same as a dvd (or worse, blu-ray), overpricing themselves from the market.Heck, blu-ray is already doing that.
The players are already cheap enough, but I see no reason to buy one because the movie discs themselves are overpriced compared to DVD.
I could see paying 1-2$ premium for HD version, not +50-100\%...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30661412</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1262689260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Which platform for in-person multiplayer video gaming doesn't involve selling out?</p></div></blockquote><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_open\_source\_video\_games" title="wikipedia.org"> <b>Linux, duh.</b> </a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which platform for in-person multiplayer video gaming does n't involve selling out ?
Linux , duh .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which platform for in-person multiplayer video gaming doesn't involve selling out?
Linux, duh.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654450</id>
	<title>Capital punishment of a medium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262705280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, they had decided to finally DECEmate DVD format?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , they had decided to finally DECEmate DVD format ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, they had decided to finally DECEmate DVD format?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657914</id>
	<title>Re:Again?</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1262718180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've stopped buying DVDs because I don't want the junk discs. I buy some content from Apple and rip it so it plays anywhere but they are overpriced and they won't let you re-download in case of losing your content (such as if a fire destroys your computer) - stupid IMO as that'd be a great feature. Usually I download hard to find content off the net and rip new release RedBox discs so that I can get around to watching them whenever I get to it (not usually the same day).

Most content is put in high quality copies on my iPod Touch which I can carry anywhere and watch on the go or by plugging into a tv or computer. IMO that is the future and either studios go with it or they are going to get smoked by pirate content. I'd buy from them if they didn't want twice the price of the DVD from Walmart, if all content was easily available (not put in the Disney vault), and if they were DRM free or easily cracked.

Apple is well positioned with the AppleTV and iPod/iPhone but they are being stupid with the iPod/iPhone. You need an expensive ($50) and bulky cable and the interface is far from up to Apple quality. They need to slim down that cable, half the price and/or throw in a remote, and bring the interface up to par. Combine that with getting their content partners to half their prices and drop DRM and I think they'd kill DVD/BlueRay. I think people would casually buy movies a lot more with cheap downloads than with discs because they can sit at home and pick from every movie ever made rather than the 50 or so titles the local store has. I'd price old movies at $3, new movies at $7, and tv episodes at $1 each. People would buy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've stopped buying DVDs because I do n't want the junk discs .
I buy some content from Apple and rip it so it plays anywhere but they are overpriced and they wo n't let you re-download in case of losing your content ( such as if a fire destroys your computer ) - stupid IMO as that 'd be a great feature .
Usually I download hard to find content off the net and rip new release RedBox discs so that I can get around to watching them whenever I get to it ( not usually the same day ) .
Most content is put in high quality copies on my iPod Touch which I can carry anywhere and watch on the go or by plugging into a tv or computer .
IMO that is the future and either studios go with it or they are going to get smoked by pirate content .
I 'd buy from them if they did n't want twice the price of the DVD from Walmart , if all content was easily available ( not put in the Disney vault ) , and if they were DRM free or easily cracked .
Apple is well positioned with the AppleTV and iPod/iPhone but they are being stupid with the iPod/iPhone .
You need an expensive ( $ 50 ) and bulky cable and the interface is far from up to Apple quality .
They need to slim down that cable , half the price and/or throw in a remote , and bring the interface up to par .
Combine that with getting their content partners to half their prices and drop DRM and I think they 'd kill DVD/BlueRay .
I think people would casually buy movies a lot more with cheap downloads than with discs because they can sit at home and pick from every movie ever made rather than the 50 or so titles the local store has .
I 'd price old movies at $ 3 , new movies at $ 7 , and tv episodes at $ 1 each .
People would buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've stopped buying DVDs because I don't want the junk discs.
I buy some content from Apple and rip it so it plays anywhere but they are overpriced and they won't let you re-download in case of losing your content (such as if a fire destroys your computer) - stupid IMO as that'd be a great feature.
Usually I download hard to find content off the net and rip new release RedBox discs so that I can get around to watching them whenever I get to it (not usually the same day).
Most content is put in high quality copies on my iPod Touch which I can carry anywhere and watch on the go or by plugging into a tv or computer.
IMO that is the future and either studios go with it or they are going to get smoked by pirate content.
I'd buy from them if they didn't want twice the price of the DVD from Walmart, if all content was easily available (not put in the Disney vault), and if they were DRM free or easily cracked.
Apple is well positioned with the AppleTV and iPod/iPhone but they are being stupid with the iPod/iPhone.
You need an expensive ($50) and bulky cable and the interface is far from up to Apple quality.
They need to slim down that cable, half the price and/or throw in a remote, and bring the interface up to par.
Combine that with getting their content partners to half their prices and drop DRM and I think they'd kill DVD/BlueRay.
I think people would casually buy movies a lot more with cheap downloads than with discs because they can sit at home and pick from every movie ever made rather than the 50 or so titles the local store has.
I'd price old movies at $3, new movies at $7, and tv episodes at $1 each.
People would buy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655786</id>
	<title>Re:Again?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262711040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And on top of that, artists get just as much ripped of and fucked, as we are. (Except for the really big names.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And on top of that , artists get just as much ripped of and fucked , as we are .
( Except for the really big names .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And on top of that, artists get just as much ripped of and fucked, as we are.
(Except for the really big names.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655062</id>
	<title>Re:Plays for Sure!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262708160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If I "buy" a movie, I expect it to play whenever and wherever I want to watch it</i></p><p>If you BUY a movie it WILL play whenever and wherever you want to watch it. If it won't you didn't buy it, you rented it. You can't buy movies or music with DRM, you can only rent it or pirate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I " buy " a movie , I expect it to play whenever and wherever I want to watch itIf you BUY a movie it WILL play whenever and wherever you want to watch it .
If it wo n't you did n't buy it , you rented it .
You ca n't buy movies or music with DRM , you can only rent it or pirate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I "buy" a movie, I expect it to play whenever and wherever I want to watch itIf you BUY a movie it WILL play whenever and wherever you want to watch it.
If it won't you didn't buy it, you rented it.
You can't buy movies or music with DRM, you can only rent it or pirate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654836</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262707140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The argument DOES hold water when the obstacle in his path is an artificial one that was arbitrarily created.</p><p>You really think it is easier to get somewhere by not following the traffic lights, then I dare you to try and prove that point (you even said so yourself "if at all").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument DOES hold water when the obstacle in his path is an artificial one that was arbitrarily created.You really think it is easier to get somewhere by not following the traffic lights , then I dare you to try and prove that point ( you even said so yourself " if at all " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument DOES hold water when the obstacle in his path is an artificial one that was arbitrarily created.You really think it is easier to get somewhere by not following the traffic lights, then I dare you to try and prove that point (you even said so yourself "if at all").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654744</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1262706780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, it's your rejoinder that doesn't hold water.   If I couldn't pay taxes without special TaxBux [tm], and if I went out and bought some TaxBux and it turned out that they weren't compatible with the IRS office in my state, then you'd have a similar situation.</p><p>Also, when was the last time you had to follow the rules to eat a banana?   Sure, you bought the banana from someone, and that was following the rules, just like buying a DVD is following the rules.   But once you had the banana, you could just eat it.   There was no question as to whether the banana would be compatible with your digestive system.   DRM that doesn't work with a monitor that's supposed to support that kind of DRM is like a banana you can't eat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , it 's your rejoinder that does n't hold water .
If I could n't pay taxes without special TaxBux [ tm ] , and if I went out and bought some TaxBux and it turned out that they were n't compatible with the IRS office in my state , then you 'd have a similar situation.Also , when was the last time you had to follow the rules to eat a banana ?
Sure , you bought the banana from someone , and that was following the rules , just like buying a DVD is following the rules .
But once you had the banana , you could just eat it .
There was no question as to whether the banana would be compatible with your digestive system .
DRM that does n't work with a monitor that 's supposed to support that kind of DRM is like a banana you ca n't eat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, it's your rejoinder that doesn't hold water.
If I couldn't pay taxes without special TaxBux [tm], and if I went out and bought some TaxBux and it turned out that they weren't compatible with the IRS office in my state, then you'd have a similar situation.Also, when was the last time you had to follow the rules to eat a banana?
Sure, you bought the banana from someone, and that was following the rules, just like buying a DVD is following the rules.
But once you had the banana, you could just eat it.
There was no question as to whether the banana would be compatible with your digestive system.
DRM that doesn't work with a monitor that's supposed to support that kind of DRM is like a banana you can't eat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658250</id>
	<title>Re:Again?</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1262719560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Online music distribution is picking up now that DRM is fading away, and the movie industry wants to up the encryption? Seriously?</p></div><p>This is an artifact of the differences in the two markets. Music is played over and over and acquiring a higher quality version of a song has value. With movies, most viewers will be happy with their first viewing, even if it's not the highest quality. Once they've seen the story they don't need to see it again unless they want to show it to friends or remind themselves of it years later.</p><p>As an example, I got in to a free showing of (now, Sir) Patrick Stewart's made for TV Moby Dick many years ago before it aired on TV. I never watched it on TV, and why would I? There was nothing new to be gained. They lost an audience member by showing it to me. Of course, they got a review out of the deal that was probably read by a few thousand people, so that's a good deal, but movie companies don't see an upside in losing a viewer of Avatar or Sherlock Holmes. Perhaps there is on, and I'd love to have that debate in a venue that the studios participated in, but right now they're afraid that their primary money-making engine, the blockbuster weekend which fuels subsequent DVD sales, will be compromised by the easy availability of downloadable screeners and camcorder rips and it's too simplistic to say that they should just follow the music industry model and let it go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Online music distribution is picking up now that DRM is fading away , and the movie industry wants to up the encryption ?
Seriously ? This is an artifact of the differences in the two markets .
Music is played over and over and acquiring a higher quality version of a song has value .
With movies , most viewers will be happy with their first viewing , even if it 's not the highest quality .
Once they 've seen the story they do n't need to see it again unless they want to show it to friends or remind themselves of it years later.As an example , I got in to a free showing of ( now , Sir ) Patrick Stewart 's made for TV Moby Dick many years ago before it aired on TV .
I never watched it on TV , and why would I ?
There was nothing new to be gained .
They lost an audience member by showing it to me .
Of course , they got a review out of the deal that was probably read by a few thousand people , so that 's a good deal , but movie companies do n't see an upside in losing a viewer of Avatar or Sherlock Holmes .
Perhaps there is on , and I 'd love to have that debate in a venue that the studios participated in , but right now they 're afraid that their primary money-making engine , the blockbuster weekend which fuels subsequent DVD sales , will be compromised by the easy availability of downloadable screeners and camcorder rips and it 's too simplistic to say that they should just follow the music industry model and let it go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Online music distribution is picking up now that DRM is fading away, and the movie industry wants to up the encryption?
Seriously?This is an artifact of the differences in the two markets.
Music is played over and over and acquiring a higher quality version of a song has value.
With movies, most viewers will be happy with their first viewing, even if it's not the highest quality.
Once they've seen the story they don't need to see it again unless they want to show it to friends or remind themselves of it years later.As an example, I got in to a free showing of (now, Sir) Patrick Stewart's made for TV Moby Dick many years ago before it aired on TV.
I never watched it on TV, and why would I?
There was nothing new to be gained.
They lost an audience member by showing it to me.
Of course, they got a review out of the deal that was probably read by a few thousand people, so that's a good deal, but movie companies don't see an upside in losing a viewer of Avatar or Sherlock Holmes.
Perhaps there is on, and I'd love to have that debate in a venue that the studios participated in, but right now they're afraid that their primary money-making engine, the blockbuster weekend which fuels subsequent DVD sales, will be compromised by the easy availability of downloadable screeners and camcorder rips and it's too simplistic to say that they should just follow the music industry model and let it go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655396</id>
	<title>Just so you know:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262709600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The MPAA members made <em>record profits</em> last year. And the year before.<br>So the motivation for this is not to prevent &ldquo;losses&rdquo;, but to make <em>even more</em> money.<br>By selling us everything twice, thrice, as often as we don&rsquo;t learn from it.</p><p>I wonder if kids that grow up now will think that this is actually normal. North Korea suggests that this is the case. I really hope for them that I won&rsquo;t have to fix the minds of my future children some day. Or they (the **AA) are in for a looong life of pain, tears and nightmares.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA members made record profits last year .
And the year before.So the motivation for this is not to prevent    losses    , but to make even more money.By selling us everything twice , thrice , as often as we don    t learn from it.I wonder if kids that grow up now will think that this is actually normal .
North Korea suggests that this is the case .
I really hope for them that I won    t have to fix the minds of my future children some day .
Or they ( the * * AA ) are in for a looong life of pain , tears and nightmares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA members made record profits last year.
And the year before.So the motivation for this is not to prevent “losses”, but to make even more money.By selling us everything twice, thrice, as often as we don’t learn from it.I wonder if kids that grow up now will think that this is actually normal.
North Korea suggests that this is the case.
I really hope for them that I won’t have to fix the minds of my future children some day.
Or they (the **AA) are in for a looong life of pain, tears and nightmares.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655986</id>
	<title>Re:All-hardware encryption?</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262711820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Holy Grail is that all computing devices become essentially XBoxes, with even more lock-down: a completely controlled platform that allows for zero customization that doesn't involve going to the source and paying someone money. Yes, even the Xbox can be modded, but they're trying to make it even more secure.</p><p>That generally requires some form of hardware implementation, because people might be able to click install, but they're unlikely to take out a chip and solder something else in - or even find someone with the resources to create a new chip that bypasses the controls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Holy Grail is that all computing devices become essentially XBoxes , with even more lock-down : a completely controlled platform that allows for zero customization that does n't involve going to the source and paying someone money .
Yes , even the Xbox can be modded , but they 're trying to make it even more secure.That generally requires some form of hardware implementation , because people might be able to click install , but they 're unlikely to take out a chip and solder something else in - or even find someone with the resources to create a new chip that bypasses the controls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Holy Grail is that all computing devices become essentially XBoxes, with even more lock-down: a completely controlled platform that allows for zero customization that doesn't involve going to the source and paying someone money.
Yes, even the Xbox can be modded, but they're trying to make it even more secure.That generally requires some form of hardware implementation, because people might be able to click install, but they're unlikely to take out a chip and solder something else in - or even find someone with the resources to create a new chip that bypasses the controls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30662686</id>
	<title>oblig xkcd</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1262695320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/305/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/305/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/305/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/305/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654268</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262704200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not just stupid DRM, but stupid content controls in general.  An example.  I wanted to watch Inglorious Bastards so I checked the Xbox marketplace.  I see it's available, but wait it's only available to buy - in standard definition no less.  Why I can't I rent it?  There are tons of other movies to rent.  It can be rented at the video store or on netflix, but I can't rent it from the Xbox marketplace.  I am trying to pay to rent a movie, and the content providers instead of making it easy for me to do so push me to find it on the internet instead.</p></div><p>You're the one who sold out to Microsoft and bought an Xbox to begin with.  Now you expect to not be screwed? Whiner.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just stupid DRM , but stupid content controls in general .
An example .
I wanted to watch Inglorious Bastards so I checked the Xbox marketplace .
I see it 's available , but wait it 's only available to buy - in standard definition no less .
Why I ca n't I rent it ?
There are tons of other movies to rent .
It can be rented at the video store or on netflix , but I ca n't rent it from the Xbox marketplace .
I am trying to pay to rent a movie , and the content providers instead of making it easy for me to do so push me to find it on the internet instead.You 're the one who sold out to Microsoft and bought an Xbox to begin with .
Now you expect to not be screwed ?
Whiner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just stupid DRM, but stupid content controls in general.
An example.
I wanted to watch Inglorious Bastards so I checked the Xbox marketplace.
I see it's available, but wait it's only available to buy - in standard definition no less.
Why I can't I rent it?
There are tons of other movies to rent.
It can be rented at the video store or on netflix, but I can't rent it from the Xbox marketplace.
I am trying to pay to rent a movie, and the content providers instead of making it easy for me to do so push me to find it on the internet instead.You're the one who sold out to Microsoft and bought an Xbox to begin with.
Now you expect to not be screwed?
Whiner.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30660066</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262684160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Feels good man</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Feels good man</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feels good man</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654368</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262704800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They would never do that though because it would cost them in terms of bandwidth every time the data is accessed and they have no recurring charges from the licensees.</p><p>It works for Steam because 99\% of the time the software is installed on one machine and that's it.  Partly because that's all the normal person needs and partly because the downloads are so large relative to common Net connections that nobody wants to spend the time to redownload it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They would never do that though because it would cost them in terms of bandwidth every time the data is accessed and they have no recurring charges from the licensees.It works for Steam because 99 \ % of the time the software is installed on one machine and that 's it .
Partly because that 's all the normal person needs and partly because the downloads are so large relative to common Net connections that nobody wants to spend the time to redownload it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would never do that though because it would cost them in terms of bandwidth every time the data is accessed and they have no recurring charges from the licensees.It works for Steam because 99\% of the time the software is installed on one machine and that's it.
Partly because that's all the normal person needs and partly because the downloads are so large relative to common Net connections that nobody wants to spend the time to redownload it anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30659686</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1262682600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So, what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware?</i></p><p>There's actually value added here, depending on the configuration.  If content can be downloaded locally AND streamed from a central location, then you can have your media wherever you go.  That's huge for people who either can't or don't want to run their own home media server.</p><p>Personally, I don't care one way or the other about either the service or the DRM.  It's been well established, both in theory and in practice, that you cannot give people secure content AND the key to unlock that content, and still expect it to remain secure, and as such, DRM is doomed to failure.  But we all know the studios need DRM to make their debut in the digital domain, the same way children sometimes need a special blanket or a stuffed animal to make them feel safe in new situations.  It makes them feel like they're in control, and that everything will be okay.  Eventually they will realize that no amount of polyester can insulate them from reality, and wishing won't make it so.  At which point they'll either suffer a mental breakdown, or grow up and learn to live in the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware ? There 's actually value added here , depending on the configuration .
If content can be downloaded locally AND streamed from a central location , then you can have your media wherever you go .
That 's huge for people who either ca n't or do n't want to run their own home media server.Personally , I do n't care one way or the other about either the service or the DRM .
It 's been well established , both in theory and in practice , that you can not give people secure content AND the key to unlock that content , and still expect it to remain secure , and as such , DRM is doomed to failure .
But we all know the studios need DRM to make their debut in the digital domain , the same way children sometimes need a special blanket or a stuffed animal to make them feel safe in new situations .
It makes them feel like they 're in control , and that everything will be okay .
Eventually they will realize that no amount of polyester can insulate them from reality , and wishing wo n't make it so .
At which point they 'll either suffer a mental breakdown , or grow up and learn to live in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware?There's actually value added here, depending on the configuration.
If content can be downloaded locally AND streamed from a central location, then you can have your media wherever you go.
That's huge for people who either can't or don't want to run their own home media server.Personally, I don't care one way or the other about either the service or the DRM.
It's been well established, both in theory and in practice, that you cannot give people secure content AND the key to unlock that content, and still expect it to remain secure, and as such, DRM is doomed to failure.
But we all know the studios need DRM to make their debut in the digital domain, the same way children sometimes need a special blanket or a stuffed animal to make them feel safe in new situations.
It makes them feel like they're in control, and that everything will be okay.
Eventually they will realize that no amount of polyester can insulate them from reality, and wishing won't make it so.
At which point they'll either suffer a mental breakdown, or grow up and learn to live in the real world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654172</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1262703720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, this sounds like a good reason why I would write to the big record / movie companies and explain the <i>real</i> reason why I'm not buying their products anymore.<br> <br>1. I dislike their products. All of them.<br> <br>Yeah, that's the only reason. Nothing to do with piracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this sounds like a good reason why I would write to the big record / movie companies and explain the real reason why I 'm not buying their products anymore .
1. I dislike their products .
All of them .
Yeah , that 's the only reason .
Nothing to do with piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this sounds like a good reason why I would write to the big record / movie companies and explain the real reason why I'm not buying their products anymore.
1. I dislike their products.
All of them.
Yeah, that's the only reason.
Nothing to do with piracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654432</id>
	<title>Broad alliance solving problem of being too useful</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262705220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Consumers, the industry believes, could balk at buying digital movies and TV shows until they can bring their collections with them wherever they go -- by and large the same freedom people have with DVDs.

</p><p>In the last year and a half, a broad alliance of high-tech companies and Hollywood studios has been trying to address this problem through an organization called the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem, or DECE. Five of the six major Hollywood studios (Warner Brothers, NBC Universal, Sony, Paramount and Fox, but not Walt Disney) are involved, with Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Comcast, Intel and Best Buy.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Remember, these difficulties are from them wanting information to behave like limited physical objects. Every step they have to negate information's greatest advantages over physical objects, in order to maintain artificial scarcity. Those who haven't shackled themselves would never need a "broad alliance of high-tech companies and Hollywood studios" to address the problem, since it wouldn't even exist. We already have video encoding standards, and storage medium standards, so we can move video among all our devices. The only problem is that it's too easy. It's insane that their problem is that something is too useful, and they consider crippling the technology to be creating value.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consumers , the industry believes , could balk at buying digital movies and TV shows until they can bring their collections with them wherever they go -- by and large the same freedom people have with DVDs .
In the last year and a half , a broad alliance of high-tech companies and Hollywood studios has been trying to address this problem through an organization called the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem , or DECE .
Five of the six major Hollywood studios ( Warner Brothers , NBC Universal , Sony , Paramount and Fox , but not Walt Disney ) are involved , with Microsoft , Cisco Systems , Comcast , Intel and Best Buy .
Remember , these difficulties are from them wanting information to behave like limited physical objects .
Every step they have to negate information 's greatest advantages over physical objects , in order to maintain artificial scarcity .
Those who have n't shackled themselves would never need a " broad alliance of high-tech companies and Hollywood studios " to address the problem , since it would n't even exist .
We already have video encoding standards , and storage medium standards , so we can move video among all our devices .
The only problem is that it 's too easy .
It 's insane that their problem is that something is too useful , and they consider crippling the technology to be creating value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consumers, the industry believes, could balk at buying digital movies and TV shows until they can bring their collections with them wherever they go -- by and large the same freedom people have with DVDs.
In the last year and a half, a broad alliance of high-tech companies and Hollywood studios has been trying to address this problem through an organization called the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem, or DECE.
Five of the six major Hollywood studios (Warner Brothers, NBC Universal, Sony, Paramount and Fox, but not Walt Disney) are involved, with Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Comcast, Intel and Best Buy.
Remember, these difficulties are from them wanting information to behave like limited physical objects.
Every step they have to negate information's greatest advantages over physical objects, in order to maintain artificial scarcity.
Those who haven't shackled themselves would never need a "broad alliance of high-tech companies and Hollywood studios" to address the problem, since it wouldn't even exist.
We already have video encoding standards, and storage medium standards, so we can move video among all our devices.
The only problem is that it's too easy.
It's insane that their problem is that something is too useful, and they consider crippling the technology to be creating value.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655176</id>
	<title>Re:Plays for Sure!</title>
	<author>bsharp8256</author>
	<datestamp>1262708640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I want to watch it in a house<br>
I want to watch it with a mouse<br>
I want to watch it on a boat<br>
I want to watch it with a goat<br>
I want to watch it in the grass<br>
If MPAA won't let me I'll shove it up their ass!</i> (Ok, that was cheap<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P)<br>
<i>All these restrictions don't let me admire it<br>
Perhaps I'll get it from a pirate!</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to watch it in a house I want to watch it with a mouse I want to watch it on a boat I want to watch it with a goat I want to watch it in the grass If MPAA wo n't let me I 'll shove it up their ass !
( Ok , that was cheap : P ) All these restrictions do n't let me admire it Perhaps I 'll get it from a pirate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to watch it in a house
I want to watch it with a mouse
I want to watch it on a boat
I want to watch it with a goat
I want to watch it in the grass
If MPAA won't let me I'll shove it up their ass!
(Ok, that was cheap :P)
All these restrictions don't let me admire it
Perhaps I'll get it from a pirate!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657354</id>
	<title>Re:Again?</title>
	<author>multipart/mixed</author>
	<datestamp>1262716380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; "The proof will be whether it revives home entertainment sales by getting<br>&gt;&gt; consumers excited about the new freedoms of the digital world."</p><p>&gt; Really? New Freedoms?</p><p>Interestingly, I personally lost interest in home entertainment when it started getting hard to buy blank Beta tapes.... it was only recently revived when I discovered I could buy a DVD player that can read Div/X off thumb drives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; " The proof will be whether it revives home entertainment sales by getting &gt; &gt; consumers excited about the new freedoms of the digital world .
" &gt; Really ?
New Freedoms ? Interestingly , I personally lost interest in home entertainment when it started getting hard to buy blank Beta tapes.... it was only recently revived when I discovered I could buy a DVD player that can read Div/X off thumb drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; "The proof will be whether it revives home entertainment sales by getting&gt;&gt; consumers excited about the new freedoms of the digital world.
"&gt; Really?
New Freedoms?Interestingly, I personally lost interest in home entertainment when it started getting hard to buy blank Beta tapes.... it was only recently revived when I discovered I could buy a DVD player that can read Div/X off thumb drives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654780</id>
	<title>The Hangover</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262706840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I rented "The Hangover" last night.  There is a nice new nasty FBI warning when you load the disk and it won't let you skip the previews or go to the main menu.  It was another nail in the coffin for me an purchasing or renting movies.  I'm about one more bad experience away from becoming a full blown pirate.  What made DVD's great when they first came out was the ability to skip all the crap and to not have to rewind, this forcing you to watch PSA's before the movie is utter crap. (Yes there is a stop smoking PSA you can't skip too...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I rented " The Hangover " last night .
There is a nice new nasty FBI warning when you load the disk and it wo n't let you skip the previews or go to the main menu .
It was another nail in the coffin for me an purchasing or renting movies .
I 'm about one more bad experience away from becoming a full blown pirate .
What made DVD 's great when they first came out was the ability to skip all the crap and to not have to rewind , this forcing you to watch PSA 's before the movie is utter crap .
( Yes there is a stop smoking PSA you ca n't skip too... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I rented "The Hangover" last night.
There is a nice new nasty FBI warning when you load the disk and it won't let you skip the previews or go to the main menu.
It was another nail in the coffin for me an purchasing or renting movies.
I'm about one more bad experience away from becoming a full blown pirate.
What made DVD's great when they first came out was the ability to skip all the crap and to not have to rewind, this forcing you to watch PSA's before the movie is utter crap.
(Yes there is a stop smoking PSA you can't skip too...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30663436</id>
	<title>What's this "not enough" nonsense?</title>
	<author>aix tom</author>
	<datestamp>1262698740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thinking of CSS as "not enough" is like having a Caf&#233; using 5 spoons of salt for every coffee, and when the customers are fleeing in troves thinking that the cause is perhaps they are using "not enough" salt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thinking of CSS as " not enough " is like having a Caf   using 5 spoons of salt for every coffee , and when the customers are fleeing in troves thinking that the cause is perhaps they are using " not enough " salt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thinking of CSS as "not enough" is like having a Café using 5 spoons of salt for every coffee, and when the customers are fleeing in troves thinking that the cause is perhaps they are using "not enough" salt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656124</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on how big</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1262712300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter how the central key server is set up, it is a single point of failure.  Any change in corporate mindset, ownership, laws, technology, *anything*, ruins it for everybody, and I will not buy a movie or music or game if I don't have control over it.</p><p>It's one thing to worry about keeping copies via backup or worrying about transferring to each new computer I buy.  But those are my problems and I can deal with them.  Having my collection at the mercy of a bunch of corporate shills or the government is another matter entirely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter how the central key server is set up , it is a single point of failure .
Any change in corporate mindset , ownership , laws , technology , * anything * , ruins it for everybody , and I will not buy a movie or music or game if I do n't have control over it.It 's one thing to worry about keeping copies via backup or worrying about transferring to each new computer I buy .
But those are my problems and I can deal with them .
Having my collection at the mercy of a bunch of corporate shills or the government is another matter entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter how the central key server is set up, it is a single point of failure.
Any change in corporate mindset, ownership, laws, technology, *anything*, ruins it for everybody, and I will not buy a movie or music or game if I don't have control over it.It's one thing to worry about keeping copies via backup or worrying about transferring to each new computer I buy.
But those are my problems and I can deal with them.
Having my collection at the mercy of a bunch of corporate shills or the government is another matter entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654790</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>ilsaloving</author>
	<datestamp>1262706900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your comparisons arn't even close to realistic.  You are citing "rules" that are intended to maintain order and and facilitate a co-operative, functioning society.  You actually even cite a 'rule' that defines people's ability to empathize with each other.</p><p>The fact that you seem to confuse that with "rules" that clearly and deliberately harm society for the sole benefit of a companies coffers, frightens me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comparisons ar n't even close to realistic .
You are citing " rules " that are intended to maintain order and and facilitate a co-operative , functioning society .
You actually even cite a 'rule ' that defines people 's ability to empathize with each other.The fact that you seem to confuse that with " rules " that clearly and deliberately harm society for the sole benefit of a companies coffers , frightens me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comparisons arn't even close to realistic.
You are citing "rules" that are intended to maintain order and and facilitate a co-operative, functioning society.
You actually even cite a 'rule' that defines people's ability to empathize with each other.The fact that you seem to confuse that with "rules" that clearly and deliberately harm society for the sole benefit of a companies coffers, frightens me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658526</id>
	<title>Re:more like an end run around Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me guess, you have a never ending stream of video on the flip down screen in the minivan to keep the damn kid quiet when you drive.</p><p>"Going to the store kids!  Pick a movie for the 3 minute ride!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me guess , you have a never ending stream of video on the flip down screen in the minivan to keep the damn kid quiet when you drive .
" Going to the store kids !
Pick a movie for the 3 minute ride !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me guess, you have a never ending stream of video on the flip down screen in the minivan to keep the damn kid quiet when you drive.
"Going to the store kids!
Pick a movie for the 3 minute ride!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30679278</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>mldi</author>
	<datestamp>1262801940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is all your examples are very short-sighted:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)</p></div><p>If you don't pay taxes, that's less money towards schools, infrastructure maintenance, police/firefighter salaries, etc -- all of society loses, including you.


Furthermore, if you don't pay taxes, you'll probably get audited, fined, and maybe even jailed.</p></div><p>Throwing money at schools has never helped. Where I'm from, the police and firefighter unions are causing the city to go bankrupt (demanding too much), and when is the last time you reported a crime to the cops? Did they do anything more than fill out a simple report? Did they show any concern/care? That happened to me. I was robbed, and I knew what stores he hit up next (since he got my debit card in the process), called and confirmed they had security footage of him... yet, they couldn't even be arsed to go and retrieve said security footage. The store wouldn't give it to me personally. So, once the damn cops actually do their jobs, let me know, and I'll say their fat and easily achieved pension plans are justified. Not every city has cops that face down danger ever second of every day. Hell, half of them can't even accomplish staying fit enough to run even a quarter of a damn mile. PATHETIC.</p><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>It's easier not to care about others (less worries)</p></div><p>If you don't care about others, they are less likely to care about you. If you act like an ass to others, they're more likely to act like an ass towards you -- both parties lose (unless you like being treated like crap).


If everyone in society didn't care about anyone else, then all of society would lose.</p></div><p>You have a point. I'll counter though with the fact that I <b>shouldn't</b> care about the lazy assholes who refuse to care about themselves enough to provide for themselves, even minimally, when they are perfectly capable. They aren't contributing towards society either, and it punishes the ones who work hard to be forced to take care of the lazy assholes all the time. The lazy ones are an incredible drain on society. Therefore, I should not care about them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is all your examples are very short-sighted : It 's easier to not pay taxes ( less forms to fill in ) If you do n't pay taxes , that 's less money towards schools , infrastructure maintenance , police/firefighter salaries , etc -- all of society loses , including you .
Furthermore , if you do n't pay taxes , you 'll probably get audited , fined , and maybe even jailed.Throwing money at schools has never helped .
Where I 'm from , the police and firefighter unions are causing the city to go bankrupt ( demanding too much ) , and when is the last time you reported a crime to the cops ?
Did they do anything more than fill out a simple report ?
Did they show any concern/care ?
That happened to me .
I was robbed , and I knew what stores he hit up next ( since he got my debit card in the process ) , called and confirmed they had security footage of him... yet , they could n't even be arsed to go and retrieve said security footage .
The store would n't give it to me personally .
So , once the damn cops actually do their jobs , let me know , and I 'll say their fat and easily achieved pension plans are justified .
Not every city has cops that face down danger ever second of every day .
Hell , half of them ca n't even accomplish staying fit enough to run even a quarter of a damn mile .
PATHETIC.It 's easier not to care about others ( less worries ) If you do n't care about others , they are less likely to care about you .
If you act like an ass to others , they 're more likely to act like an ass towards you -- both parties lose ( unless you like being treated like crap ) .
If everyone in society did n't care about anyone else , then all of society would lose.You have a point .
I 'll counter though with the fact that I should n't care about the lazy assholes who refuse to care about themselves enough to provide for themselves , even minimally , when they are perfectly capable .
They are n't contributing towards society either , and it punishes the ones who work hard to be forced to take care of the lazy assholes all the time .
The lazy ones are an incredible drain on society .
Therefore , I should not care about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is all your examples are very short-sighted:It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)If you don't pay taxes, that's less money towards schools, infrastructure maintenance, police/firefighter salaries, etc -- all of society loses, including you.
Furthermore, if you don't pay taxes, you'll probably get audited, fined, and maybe even jailed.Throwing money at schools has never helped.
Where I'm from, the police and firefighter unions are causing the city to go bankrupt (demanding too much), and when is the last time you reported a crime to the cops?
Did they do anything more than fill out a simple report?
Did they show any concern/care?
That happened to me.
I was robbed, and I knew what stores he hit up next (since he got my debit card in the process), called and confirmed they had security footage of him... yet, they couldn't even be arsed to go and retrieve said security footage.
The store wouldn't give it to me personally.
So, once the damn cops actually do their jobs, let me know, and I'll say their fat and easily achieved pension plans are justified.
Not every city has cops that face down danger ever second of every day.
Hell, half of them can't even accomplish staying fit enough to run even a quarter of a damn mile.
PATHETIC.It's easier not to care about others (less worries)If you don't care about others, they are less likely to care about you.
If you act like an ass to others, they're more likely to act like an ass towards you -- both parties lose (unless you like being treated like crap).
If everyone in society didn't care about anyone else, then all of society would lose.You have a point.
I'll counter though with the fact that I shouldn't care about the lazy assholes who refuse to care about themselves enough to provide for themselves, even minimally, when they are perfectly capable.
They aren't contributing towards society either, and it punishes the ones who work hard to be forced to take care of the lazy assholes all the time.
The lazy ones are an incredible drain on society.
Therefore, I should not care about them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655524</id>
	<title>Re:You're paying for the content , not the format</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1262710080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thats what capitalism is all about isn't it? Supply and demand?</p></div><p>Under normal circumstances, yes.  "Intellectual property" screws that idea all up though.  Supply and demand don't work when supply is infinite.  Prices are only set by demand, but that too gets screwed up when people find a way to access the unlimited supply for zero cost.</p><p>Record companies EXPECT people to pay the prices they set.  Some will, many (who still want the product - just not as that asking price) won't.  You can argue about "THAT'S STEALING!!!" all you want, but the population as a whole just doesn't see it that way.  Supply and demand simple doesn't apply to this model.</p><p>Imagine you saw the Playstation 3 when it came out.  You want one, but realistically you couldn't pay the $400+ price tag.  A genie visits you and tells you that if you press this red button a Playstation 3 will magically appear.  It doesn't disappear off some store shelf, it doesn't take one from someone else to make yours, it literally appears for free out of thin air.  The only "cost" to anyone is that you will no longer buy it from Sony.  Do you honestly think most people would feel it morally wrong to take the Playstation out of thin air?  Nope - and no amount of bickering from Sony will change that.</p><p>With digital goods we have that magic red button.  People were fooled for a while when they felt like they were buying physical albums and movies on a hard-media, but that trick is going away.  They're not getting the genie back into the bottle.  Even as an iTunes user I'll admit that my purchases there are about the convenience of having everything easily searchable and of a known quality.  Not having to deal with shady torrent sites, spending hours looking for something, and then discovering that it's a bad rip, fake, etc, it more than worth $0.99 per song to me.  However I'm paying for that convenience, NOT out of some weird moral calling.  The companies need to learn to work that angle.  Give me a product that WORKS - and works everywhere - with a price that's high enough to make a profit but still low enough that it's worth it to people to get it this way rather than resorting to the back alley ways.  Price it too high or bog it down with DRM and I have absolutely no issue going back to getting my music and/or movies via P2P.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats what capitalism is all about is n't it ?
Supply and demand ? Under normal circumstances , yes .
" Intellectual property " screws that idea all up though .
Supply and demand do n't work when supply is infinite .
Prices are only set by demand , but that too gets screwed up when people find a way to access the unlimited supply for zero cost.Record companies EXPECT people to pay the prices they set .
Some will , many ( who still want the product - just not as that asking price ) wo n't .
You can argue about " THAT 'S STEALING ! ! !
" all you want , but the population as a whole just does n't see it that way .
Supply and demand simple does n't apply to this model.Imagine you saw the Playstation 3 when it came out .
You want one , but realistically you could n't pay the $ 400 + price tag .
A genie visits you and tells you that if you press this red button a Playstation 3 will magically appear .
It does n't disappear off some store shelf , it does n't take one from someone else to make yours , it literally appears for free out of thin air .
The only " cost " to anyone is that you will no longer buy it from Sony .
Do you honestly think most people would feel it morally wrong to take the Playstation out of thin air ?
Nope - and no amount of bickering from Sony will change that.With digital goods we have that magic red button .
People were fooled for a while when they felt like they were buying physical albums and movies on a hard-media , but that trick is going away .
They 're not getting the genie back into the bottle .
Even as an iTunes user I 'll admit that my purchases there are about the convenience of having everything easily searchable and of a known quality .
Not having to deal with shady torrent sites , spending hours looking for something , and then discovering that it 's a bad rip , fake , etc , it more than worth $ 0.99 per song to me .
However I 'm paying for that convenience , NOT out of some weird moral calling .
The companies need to learn to work that angle .
Give me a product that WORKS - and works everywhere - with a price that 's high enough to make a profit but still low enough that it 's worth it to people to get it this way rather than resorting to the back alley ways .
Price it too high or bog it down with DRM and I have absolutely no issue going back to getting my music and/or movies via P2P .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats what capitalism is all about isn't it?
Supply and demand?Under normal circumstances, yes.
"Intellectual property" screws that idea all up though.
Supply and demand don't work when supply is infinite.
Prices are only set by demand, but that too gets screwed up when people find a way to access the unlimited supply for zero cost.Record companies EXPECT people to pay the prices they set.
Some will, many (who still want the product - just not as that asking price) won't.
You can argue about "THAT'S STEALING!!!
" all you want, but the population as a whole just doesn't see it that way.
Supply and demand simple doesn't apply to this model.Imagine you saw the Playstation 3 when it came out.
You want one, but realistically you couldn't pay the $400+ price tag.
A genie visits you and tells you that if you press this red button a Playstation 3 will magically appear.
It doesn't disappear off some store shelf, it doesn't take one from someone else to make yours, it literally appears for free out of thin air.
The only "cost" to anyone is that you will no longer buy it from Sony.
Do you honestly think most people would feel it morally wrong to take the Playstation out of thin air?
Nope - and no amount of bickering from Sony will change that.With digital goods we have that magic red button.
People were fooled for a while when they felt like they were buying physical albums and movies on a hard-media, but that trick is going away.
They're not getting the genie back into the bottle.
Even as an iTunes user I'll admit that my purchases there are about the convenience of having everything easily searchable and of a known quality.
Not having to deal with shady torrent sites, spending hours looking for something, and then discovering that it's a bad rip, fake, etc, it more than worth $0.99 per song to me.
However I'm paying for that convenience, NOT out of some weird moral calling.
The companies need to learn to work that angle.
Give me a product that WORKS - and works everywhere - with a price that's high enough to make a profit but still low enough that it's worth it to people to get it this way rather than resorting to the back alley ways.
Price it too high or bog it down with DRM and I have absolutely no issue going back to getting my music and/or movies via P2P.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656042</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and what gets me is how the entertainment industry has brain washed people. I know at least two individuals who get royalty checks. In both cases the amounts are so small as to be insignificant (a little extra spending cash once in a while), and yet form the basis for vociferous defense of IP laws. In any practical sense they have no economic investment in the whole imaginary property fiasco, but they *feel* like they do.</p><p>Aside from them, everyone I know can obtain nearly arbitrary entertainment product either through ripping/downloading themselves or obtaining such from a friend. Grandma doesn't need to know how to rip bluray, just someone in the extended family/friend has to have the knowledge and willingness. But they all seem to view any level of this activity as "illegal" or "wrong", just normal. I rip movies for convenience (popcornhour rocks), for time shifting (borrow now, watch later). Neither one of these is, in my opinion, unethical. I want to say neither is illegal, but if you rip an "encrypted" DVD without doing original research and writing the software yourself, then it is illegal under the DMCA.</p><p>In short, most people see "ripping" or otherwise obtaining content as being on par with speeding: breaking the law, but something they do on a regular basis. And they see attempts to prevent it as being honorable and expected. They see themselves as the criminals, rather than the law-purchasing entertainment industry.</p><p>While far from the end of the world, I find this to be a sad situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and what gets me is how the entertainment industry has brain washed people .
I know at least two individuals who get royalty checks .
In both cases the amounts are so small as to be insignificant ( a little extra spending cash once in a while ) , and yet form the basis for vociferous defense of IP laws .
In any practical sense they have no economic investment in the whole imaginary property fiasco , but they * feel * like they do.Aside from them , everyone I know can obtain nearly arbitrary entertainment product either through ripping/downloading themselves or obtaining such from a friend .
Grandma does n't need to know how to rip bluray , just someone in the extended family/friend has to have the knowledge and willingness .
But they all seem to view any level of this activity as " illegal " or " wrong " , just normal .
I rip movies for convenience ( popcornhour rocks ) , for time shifting ( borrow now , watch later ) .
Neither one of these is , in my opinion , unethical .
I want to say neither is illegal , but if you rip an " encrypted " DVD without doing original research and writing the software yourself , then it is illegal under the DMCA.In short , most people see " ripping " or otherwise obtaining content as being on par with speeding : breaking the law , but something they do on a regular basis .
And they see attempts to prevent it as being honorable and expected .
They see themselves as the criminals , rather than the law-purchasing entertainment industry.While far from the end of the world , I find this to be a sad situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and what gets me is how the entertainment industry has brain washed people.
I know at least two individuals who get royalty checks.
In both cases the amounts are so small as to be insignificant (a little extra spending cash once in a while), and yet form the basis for vociferous defense of IP laws.
In any practical sense they have no economic investment in the whole imaginary property fiasco, but they *feel* like they do.Aside from them, everyone I know can obtain nearly arbitrary entertainment product either through ripping/downloading themselves or obtaining such from a friend.
Grandma doesn't need to know how to rip bluray, just someone in the extended family/friend has to have the knowledge and willingness.
But they all seem to view any level of this activity as "illegal" or "wrong", just normal.
I rip movies for convenience (popcornhour rocks), for time shifting (borrow now, watch later).
Neither one of these is, in my opinion, unethical.
I want to say neither is illegal, but if you rip an "encrypted" DVD without doing original research and writing the software yourself, then it is illegal under the DMCA.In short, most people see "ripping" or otherwise obtaining content as being on par with speeding: breaking the law, but something they do on a regular basis.
And they see attempts to prevent it as being honorable and expected.
They see themselves as the criminals, rather than the law-purchasing entertainment industry.While far from the end of the world, I find this to be a sad situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655008</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1262707920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)</p></div><p>In a sane country, not filing an individual tax return would mean that the IRS just assumes the most common case based on the income and withholding records provided by one's employer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easier to not pay taxes ( less forms to fill in ) In a sane country , not filing an individual tax return would mean that the IRS just assumes the most common case based on the income and withholding records provided by one 's employer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)In a sane country, not filing an individual tax return would mean that the IRS just assumes the most common case based on the income and withholding records provided by one's employer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30662668</id>
	<title>What??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262695260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are going to be a lot of ticked off people in the military that don&rsquo;t have access to the internet on their laptops.  We already can&rsquo;t play a lot of games in our off time and now movies.  I hope books don&rsquo;t go this way too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are going to be a lot of ticked off people in the military that don    t have access to the internet on their laptops .
We already can    t play a lot of games in our off time and now movies .
I hope books don    t go this way too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are going to be a lot of ticked off people in the military that don’t have access to the internet on their laptops.
We already can’t play a lot of games in our off time and now movies.
I hope books don’t go this way too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657284</id>
	<title>Non issue in free market</title>
	<author>paulpach</author>
	<datestamp>1262716200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
In a free market, DRM would not be an issue at all.
</p><p>
Think about it, every major DRM encumbered format has been broken in a matter of months. Some also died simply due to competition offering non DRM encumbered alternatives. DRM is fundamentally doomed to fail since it provides less value to people for higher costs, which is uneconomical. Witness Amazon's MP3 forcing Apple to kill DRM. Witness how easy is to watch encrypted DVD's in linux. DECE will fail for the same reasons, it wont be long before someone cracks it if it really becomes mainstream, so DECE is no significant threat to us.
</p><p>
The real problem is when government intervenes. Governments make stuff like DMCA and put people in jail for essentially enabling competition. DMCA and sw patents are the complete opposite of antitrust laws (not that I agree with antitrust either). They legally protect and enable monopolies. Government's schizophrenia would be laughable if we were not living with it. So aim your pitchforks at the right entity, at the violent force that coerces you into using this stuff and punishes anyone who might otherwise provide you with an alternative.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a free market , DRM would not be an issue at all .
Think about it , every major DRM encumbered format has been broken in a matter of months .
Some also died simply due to competition offering non DRM encumbered alternatives .
DRM is fundamentally doomed to fail since it provides less value to people for higher costs , which is uneconomical .
Witness Amazon 's MP3 forcing Apple to kill DRM .
Witness how easy is to watch encrypted DVD 's in linux .
DECE will fail for the same reasons , it wont be long before someone cracks it if it really becomes mainstream , so DECE is no significant threat to us .
The real problem is when government intervenes .
Governments make stuff like DMCA and put people in jail for essentially enabling competition .
DMCA and sw patents are the complete opposite of antitrust laws ( not that I agree with antitrust either ) .
They legally protect and enable monopolies .
Government 's schizophrenia would be laughable if we were not living with it .
So aim your pitchforks at the right entity , at the violent force that coerces you into using this stuff and punishes anyone who might otherwise provide you with an alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In a free market, DRM would not be an issue at all.
Think about it, every major DRM encumbered format has been broken in a matter of months.
Some also died simply due to competition offering non DRM encumbered alternatives.
DRM is fundamentally doomed to fail since it provides less value to people for higher costs, which is uneconomical.
Witness Amazon's MP3 forcing Apple to kill DRM.
Witness how easy is to watch encrypted DVD's in linux.
DECE will fail for the same reasons, it wont be long before someone cracks it if it really becomes mainstream, so DECE is no significant threat to us.
The real problem is when government intervenes.
Governments make stuff like DMCA and put people in jail for essentially enabling competition.
DMCA and sw patents are the complete opposite of antitrust laws (not that I agree with antitrust either).
They legally protect and enable monopolies.
Government's schizophrenia would be laughable if we were not living with it.
So aim your pitchforks at the right entity, at the violent force that coerces you into using this stuff and punishes anyone who might otherwise provide you with an alternative.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658684</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262721240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where on Earth have you found "high quality" pirated media? I call bullshit. All pirated media has been compressed, shitted over, rared, and covered with god knows what other crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where on Earth have you found " high quality " pirated media ?
I call bullshit .
All pirated media has been compressed , shitted over , rared , and covered with god knows what other crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where on Earth have you found "high quality" pirated media?
I call bullshit.
All pirated media has been compressed, shitted over, rared, and covered with god knows what other crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657874</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262718000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go home Lawyer scum. No one said pirating was right they said there tired of being screwed by the man while everyone else goes free.</p><p>"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." I spent two days getting a stupid game working for my wife because it had to verify its installation on the "host" server. Then the key had to be verified against there "verification" key. So on and so forth and lets not forget the TOS that says "You may isntall this game twice. After that your game will no longer work." YES I read the fine print. Seems to me if I lose the hard drive, wait does that ever happen? (HELL YES) then I spent $60 on a game and I'm SOL for.</p><p>Anyone who doesn't admit DRM hurts only the legitimate folks and helps piracy is making morons look intellegent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go home Lawyer scum .
No one said pirating was right they said there tired of being screwed by the man while everyone else goes free .
" When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns .
" I spent two days getting a stupid game working for my wife because it had to verify its installation on the " host " server .
Then the key had to be verified against there " verification " key .
So on and so forth and lets not forget the TOS that says " You may isntall this game twice .
After that your game will no longer work .
" YES I read the fine print .
Seems to me if I lose the hard drive , wait does that ever happen ?
( HELL YES ) then I spent $ 60 on a game and I 'm SOL for.Anyone who does n't admit DRM hurts only the legitimate folks and helps piracy is making morons look intellegent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go home Lawyer scum.
No one said pirating was right they said there tired of being screwed by the man while everyone else goes free.
"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
" I spent two days getting a stupid game working for my wife because it had to verify its installation on the "host" server.
Then the key had to be verified against there "verification" key.
So on and so forth and lets not forget the TOS that says "You may isntall this game twice.
After that your game will no longer work.
" YES I read the fine print.
Seems to me if I lose the hard drive, wait does that ever happen?
(HELL YES) then I spent $60 on a game and I'm SOL for.Anyone who doesn't admit DRM hurts only the legitimate folks and helps piracy is making morons look intellegent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654382</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>horatio</author>
	<datestamp>1262704860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I see it's available, but wait it's only available to buy - in standard definition no less. Why I can't I rent it?</p></div><p>I like amazon's music store because they provide actual mp3s.  However, I ran into this exact problem with TiVo and Amazon's downloadable movie partnership.  As of a couple of years ago when I last tried, many of the movies I wanted to watch either weren't available for download, or were only available for purchase - not rental.  It didn't make any sense at all, and was quite frustrating.  I want to pay $2.99 to watch a movie once.  Not $14.99.  So instead, they got neither.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see it 's available , but wait it 's only available to buy - in standard definition no less .
Why I ca n't I rent it ? I like amazon 's music store because they provide actual mp3s .
However , I ran into this exact problem with TiVo and Amazon 's downloadable movie partnership .
As of a couple of years ago when I last tried , many of the movies I wanted to watch either were n't available for download , or were only available for purchase - not rental .
It did n't make any sense at all , and was quite frustrating .
I want to pay $ 2.99 to watch a movie once .
Not $ 14.99 .
So instead , they got neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see it's available, but wait it's only available to buy - in standard definition no less.
Why I can't I rent it?I like amazon's music store because they provide actual mp3s.
However, I ran into this exact problem with TiVo and Amazon's downloadable movie partnership.
As of a couple of years ago when I last tried, many of the movies I wanted to watch either weren't available for download, or were only available for purchase - not rental.
It didn't make any sense at all, and was quite frustrating.
I want to pay $2.99 to watch a movie once.
Not $14.99.
So instead, they got neither.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657692</id>
	<title>When will they figure it out?  Never.</title>
	<author>hallux.sinister</author>
	<datestamp>1262717520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is an implicit requirement that if they encode it, there must be a way for the "authorized consumer" to decode it, or no one will buy it.  Furthermore, if that can be done, a way around it can be found.  With sufficient interest in the product, and sufficient spite generated by the continued (nonsensical) implied accusations made by the various AA's words and deeds, that they consider their customers are thieves, any such restriction will be worked around.  By trying to stop it, with the next annoying, and inevitably pointless scheme, all they do is encourage people to find ways to trip it up, or bypass it completely.
<p>
Maybe if they go far enough, people will get fed up and boycott their products.  Imagine if we did the Great American Smoke Out, only with DVD/CD purchases.   Show them we will not accept this kind of nonsense, and even go so far as to demand an end to region coding and encryption on DVD's, as it's pointless.
</p><p>
BTW, I found a great workaround combo for my music collection:  jamando.com.  Legal to download, and free too, (by and large) Creative Commons released content, on Jamando and sister sites, and I download in ogg and/or vorbis format formatted files, so I don't have to worry about someone else restricting my access, or ability to use the "content" at some point in the future.
</p><p>
I agree with previous poster who advocated refreshing your music/movie collection periodically, however, I want to retian the rights to listen to that which I've paid for.  Getting the music under the CC license, and downloading and storing it in a non-patent-encumbered form assures me I will have access to my files again and again throughout the years.

~Hal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is an implicit requirement that if they encode it , there must be a way for the " authorized consumer " to decode it , or no one will buy it .
Furthermore , if that can be done , a way around it can be found .
With sufficient interest in the product , and sufficient spite generated by the continued ( nonsensical ) implied accusations made by the various AA 's words and deeds , that they consider their customers are thieves , any such restriction will be worked around .
By trying to stop it , with the next annoying , and inevitably pointless scheme , all they do is encourage people to find ways to trip it up , or bypass it completely .
Maybe if they go far enough , people will get fed up and boycott their products .
Imagine if we did the Great American Smoke Out , only with DVD/CD purchases .
Show them we will not accept this kind of nonsense , and even go so far as to demand an end to region coding and encryption on DVD 's , as it 's pointless .
BTW , I found a great workaround combo for my music collection : jamando.com .
Legal to download , and free too , ( by and large ) Creative Commons released content , on Jamando and sister sites , and I download in ogg and/or vorbis format formatted files , so I do n't have to worry about someone else restricting my access , or ability to use the " content " at some point in the future .
I agree with previous poster who advocated refreshing your music/movie collection periodically , however , I want to retian the rights to listen to that which I 've paid for .
Getting the music under the CC license , and downloading and storing it in a non-patent-encumbered form assures me I will have access to my files again and again throughout the years .
~ Hal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is an implicit requirement that if they encode it, there must be a way for the "authorized consumer" to decode it, or no one will buy it.
Furthermore, if that can be done, a way around it can be found.
With sufficient interest in the product, and sufficient spite generated by the continued (nonsensical) implied accusations made by the various AA's words and deeds, that they consider their customers are thieves, any such restriction will be worked around.
By trying to stop it, with the next annoying, and inevitably pointless scheme, all they do is encourage people to find ways to trip it up, or bypass it completely.
Maybe if they go far enough, people will get fed up and boycott their products.
Imagine if we did the Great American Smoke Out, only with DVD/CD purchases.
Show them we will not accept this kind of nonsense, and even go so far as to demand an end to region coding and encryption on DVD's, as it's pointless.
BTW, I found a great workaround combo for my music collection:  jamando.com.
Legal to download, and free too, (by and large) Creative Commons released content, on Jamando and sister sites, and I download in ogg and/or vorbis format formatted files, so I don't have to worry about someone else restricting my access, or ability to use the "content" at some point in the future.
I agree with previous poster who advocated refreshing your music/movie collection periodically, however, I want to retian the rights to listen to that which I've paid for.
Getting the music under the CC license, and downloading and storing it in a non-patent-encumbered form assures me I will have access to my files again and again throughout the years.
~Hal</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655316</id>
	<title>Re:You're paying for the content , not the format</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262709240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. They initially said audio CD's were so expensive due to manufacturing costs and thr prices would drop. That never happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
They initially said audio CD 's were so expensive due to manufacturing costs and thr prices would drop .
That never happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
They initially said audio CD's were so expensive due to manufacturing costs and thr prices would drop.
That never happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654168</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1262703660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if you can feel "fair"... Several boxes with games I bought collect dust on the shelf, while I play torrented versions. Not gonna risk putting these in my drive. It took me weeks to get my DVD-RW working fully again after SecuROM bundled with Oblivion broke the drivers beyond repair and I couldn't even make copies of my private data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you can feel " fair " ... Several boxes with games I bought collect dust on the shelf , while I play torrented versions .
Not gon na risk putting these in my drive .
It took me weeks to get my DVD-RW working fully again after SecuROM bundled with Oblivion broke the drivers beyond repair and I could n't even make copies of my private data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you can feel "fair"... Several boxes with games I bought collect dust on the shelf, while I play torrented versions.
Not gonna risk putting these in my drive.
It took me weeks to get my DVD-RW working fully again after SecuROM bundled with Oblivion broke the drivers beyond repair and I couldn't even make copies of my private data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655464</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262709900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you say is true, except one thing:</p><p><i>The <b>content owners</b> spend millions of dollars (if not more) to create better encryption</i></p><p>According to the US constitution, they don't own the content; they have a limited time monopoly on its distribution. It's owned by everyone; Disney does not own Steamboat Willy, they have a limited time monopoly. WE own it. Unfortunately, they keep extending the limits of the monopoly. From the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8)</p><blockquote><div><p>The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...</p><p>To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for <b>limited times</b> to authors and inventors the <b>exclusive right</b> to their respective writings and discoveries;</p></div></blockquote><p>It doesn't say anything about your owning the content.</p><p>Some argue that ownersip and "exclusive right" are the same thing, but they're not. If you rent a house, you have exclusive right to its use, but the landlord owns it.</p><p>Also, where does it say that anyone but an author or inventor cahold a patent or copyright?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you say is true , except one thing : The content owners spend millions of dollars ( if not more ) to create better encryptionAccording to the US constitution , they do n't own the content ; they have a limited time monopoly on its distribution .
It 's owned by everyone ; Disney does not own Steamboat Willy , they have a limited time monopoly .
WE own it .
Unfortunately , they keep extending the limits of the monopoly .
From the Constitution ( Article 1 , Section 8 ) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes , duties , imposts and excises , to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ; but all duties , imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States ; ...To promote the progress of science and useful arts , by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries ; It does n't say anything about your owning the content.Some argue that ownersip and " exclusive right " are the same thing , but they 're not .
If you rent a house , you have exclusive right to its use , but the landlord owns it.Also , where does it say that anyone but an author or inventor cahold a patent or copyright ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you say is true, except one thing:The content owners spend millions of dollars (if not more) to create better encryptionAccording to the US constitution, they don't own the content; they have a limited time monopoly on its distribution.
It's owned by everyone; Disney does not own Steamboat Willy, they have a limited time monopoly.
WE own it.
Unfortunately, they keep extending the limits of the monopoly.
From the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8)The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;It doesn't say anything about your owning the content.Some argue that ownersip and "exclusive right" are the same thing, but they're not.
If you rent a house, you have exclusive right to its use, but the landlord owns it.Also, where does it say that anyone but an author or inventor cahold a patent or copyright?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654404</id>
	<title>But I don't want DRM either..</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1262705040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't want physical copies either. When I get a CD I insert in my laptop and it opens sound juicer and rips it to mp3 so I can play it everywhere. At this point, I have no use for the plastic anymore. But I want DRM even less.<p><div class="quote"><p>Now in order to get lynched I'm going to start with a statement</p><p> <i>I don't care if they put these restrictions on</i> </p><p>But I'll add a caveat...</p><p> <i>As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single payment</i> </p></div><p>And what about re-sale? can you sell it to me? can you leave it to your grandchildren? How about:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>As long as it can be played on any device I or anyone else owns or may own in the future that supports an open standard?</i> </p></div><p>That pretty much rules out DRM. An open standard is a standard that anyone can implement, with no (significant) barriers to entry. Otherwise the word "open" is just newspeak for closed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want physical copies either .
When I get a CD I insert in my laptop and it opens sound juicer and rips it to mp3 so I can play it everywhere .
At this point , I have no use for the plastic anymore .
But I want DRM even less.Now in order to get lynched I 'm going to start with a statement I do n't care if they put these restrictions on But I 'll add a caveat... As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single payment And what about re-sale ?
can you sell it to me ?
can you leave it to your grandchildren ?
How about : As long as it can be played on any device I or anyone else owns or may own in the future that supports an open standard ?
That pretty much rules out DRM .
An open standard is a standard that anyone can implement , with no ( significant ) barriers to entry .
Otherwise the word " open " is just newspeak for closed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want physical copies either.
When I get a CD I insert in my laptop and it opens sound juicer and rips it to mp3 so I can play it everywhere.
At this point, I have no use for the plastic anymore.
But I want DRM even less.Now in order to get lynched I'm going to start with a statement I don't care if they put these restrictions on But I'll add a caveat... As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single payment And what about re-sale?
can you sell it to me?
can you leave it to your grandchildren?
How about: As long as it can be played on any device I or anyone else owns or may own in the future that supports an open standard?
That pretty much rules out DRM.
An open standard is a standard that anyone can implement, with no (significant) barriers to entry.
Otherwise the word "open" is just newspeak for closed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655680</id>
	<title>Queue the Obligatory</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1262710620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Queue the obligatory Princess Leia quote in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 3<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Queue the obligatory Princess Leia quote in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Queue the obligatory Princess Leia quote in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30659518</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262725020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... you only want your content for as long as the company exists in its current form with its current EULA?<br>I'd rather have a system where all I have to worry about is a) none of the hardware fails and b) I have access to a power source that's compatible with the hardware.</p><p>For your scenario, I'd want rental prices, not purchase prices (and by rental, I mean $5 gets me a month to a year of access, or until the company no longer adheres to the EULA).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... you only want your content for as long as the company exists in its current form with its current EULA ? I 'd rather have a system where all I have to worry about is a ) none of the hardware fails and b ) I have access to a power source that 's compatible with the hardware.For your scenario , I 'd want rental prices , not purchase prices ( and by rental , I mean $ 5 gets me a month to a year of access , or until the company no longer adheres to the EULA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... you only want your content for as long as the company exists in its current form with its current EULA?I'd rather have a system where all I have to worry about is a) none of the hardware fails and b) I have access to a power source that's compatible with the hardware.For your scenario, I'd want rental prices, not purchase prices (and by rental, I mean $5 gets me a month to a year of access, or until the company no longer adheres to the EULA).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654322</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>purpledinoz</author>
	<datestamp>1262704560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's glaringly obvious that this concept is already doomed to fail. So, what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware? This hardware is not going to be cheap, and no one will be willing to pay huge subsidies to make it attractive to customers. And what real value does this add for the customer, compared to another DRM free device that plays everything, say.... a cheap laptop with HDMI output. Oh, and it plays all movies, except from Disney.</p><p>The movie and TV companies need to take advantage of their huge catalog. If downloads were cheap (say $20 for a certain 20h of content), DRM free, and access to ALL movies and TV shows ever made, I would sign up in a heart-beat. Additional value can be added by a netflix type rating and recommendation system, and channels which are pre-programmed. The key is to add additional value on top of the content itself, which piracy has pretty much pushed down to almost 0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's glaringly obvious that this concept is already doomed to fail .
So , what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware ?
This hardware is not going to be cheap , and no one will be willing to pay huge subsidies to make it attractive to customers .
And what real value does this add for the customer , compared to another DRM free device that plays everything , say.... a cheap laptop with HDMI output .
Oh , and it plays all movies , except from Disney.The movie and TV companies need to take advantage of their huge catalog .
If downloads were cheap ( say $ 20 for a certain 20h of content ) , DRM free , and access to ALL movies and TV shows ever made , I would sign up in a heart-beat .
Additional value can be added by a netflix type rating and recommendation system , and channels which are pre-programmed .
The key is to add additional value on top of the content itself , which piracy has pretty much pushed down to almost 0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's glaringly obvious that this concept is already doomed to fail.
So, what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware?
This hardware is not going to be cheap, and no one will be willing to pay huge subsidies to make it attractive to customers.
And what real value does this add for the customer, compared to another DRM free device that plays everything, say.... a cheap laptop with HDMI output.
Oh, and it plays all movies, except from Disney.The movie and TV companies need to take advantage of their huge catalog.
If downloads were cheap (say $20 for a certain 20h of content), DRM free, and access to ALL movies and TV shows ever made, I would sign up in a heart-beat.
Additional value can be added by a netflix type rating and recommendation system, and channels which are pre-programmed.
The key is to add additional value on top of the content itself, which piracy has pretty much pushed down to almost 0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654948</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>Nerdposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1262707680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't care if they put these restrictions on...As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single payment</p></div></blockquote><p>How can that work? The main concept of DRM is this: "if our algorithm says you didn't buy this, it won't work."</p><p>That algorithm is always fallible. Maybe 5 years from now you'll want to use the file on hardware that hasn't been invented yet. Maybe 10 years from now the DRM-verifying server will be shut down. Somehow, sometime, it will bite you. And it will suck. And you will have lost what you paid for.</p><blockquote><div><p>If I could get rid of all my DVDs and have a single, secure, backed up place where my devices can connect and download the content for local playing then I'd be much happier.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sounds good, but will that cloud service be perpetually free after you bought the content? Nope. It will be a subscription. And when you stop paying, you'll lose access to the cloud. So unless you can still back up, transfer, and play your local copies, this model is known as "renting."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if they put these restrictions on...As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single paymentHow can that work ?
The main concept of DRM is this : " if our algorithm says you did n't buy this , it wo n't work .
" That algorithm is always fallible .
Maybe 5 years from now you 'll want to use the file on hardware that has n't been invented yet .
Maybe 10 years from now the DRM-verifying server will be shut down .
Somehow , sometime , it will bite you .
And it will suck .
And you will have lost what you paid for.If I could get rid of all my DVDs and have a single , secure , backed up place where my devices can connect and download the content for local playing then I 'd be much happier.Sounds good , but will that cloud service be perpetually free after you bought the content ?
Nope. It will be a subscription .
And when you stop paying , you 'll lose access to the cloud .
So unless you can still back up , transfer , and play your local copies , this model is known as " renting .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if they put these restrictions on...As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single paymentHow can that work?
The main concept of DRM is this: "if our algorithm says you didn't buy this, it won't work.
"That algorithm is always fallible.
Maybe 5 years from now you'll want to use the file on hardware that hasn't been invented yet.
Maybe 10 years from now the DRM-verifying server will be shut down.
Somehow, sometime, it will bite you.
And it will suck.
And you will have lost what you paid for.If I could get rid of all my DVDs and have a single, secure, backed up place where my devices can connect and download the content for local playing then I'd be much happier.Sounds good, but will that cloud service be perpetually free after you bought the content?
Nope. It will be a subscription.
And when you stop paying, you'll lose access to the cloud.
So unless you can still back up, transfer, and play your local copies, this model is known as "renting.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656246</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Ice Tiger</author>
	<datestamp>1262712720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agree with this post 100\%. Give me the product I want with video, like I have now with music which is high quality DRM free content and I will buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree with this post 100 \ % .
Give me the product I want with video , like I have now with music which is high quality DRM free content and I will buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree with this post 100\%.
Give me the product I want with video, like I have now with music which is high quality DRM free content and I will buy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654832</id>
	<title>We can do that already...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262707080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It is easy to take a DVD to a friend&rsquo;s house and watch it on his TV. But things are more complicated when digital video downloads are involved."<br>It's not, really. If my friends don't have a multimedia-HDD able to play downloaded movies, I bring mine. I have to bring it because my movies are on it anyways.<br>Of course, I never tried with a movie you pay to download, which sounds like a really stupid thing to do...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is easy to take a DVD to a friend    s house and watch it on his TV .
But things are more complicated when digital video downloads are involved .
" It 's not , really .
If my friends do n't have a multimedia-HDD able to play downloaded movies , I bring mine .
I have to bring it because my movies are on it anyways.Of course , I never tried with a movie you pay to download , which sounds like a really stupid thing to do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is easy to take a DVD to a friend’s house and watch it on his TV.
But things are more complicated when digital video downloads are involved.
"It's not, really.
If my friends don't have a multimedia-HDD able to play downloaded movies, I bring mine.
I have to bring it because my movies are on it anyways.Of course, I never tried with a movie you pay to download, which sounds like a really stupid thing to do...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655236</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>zoward</author>
	<datestamp>1262708940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, if you can feel "fair"... Several boxes with games I bought collect dust on the shelf, while I play torrented versions. Not gonna risk putting these in my drive. It took me weeks to get my DVD-RW working fully again after SecuROM bundled with Oblivion broke the drivers beyond repair and I couldn't even make copies of my private data.</p></div><p>You need to get the original edition.  It has no DRM other than a simple check to make sure the disc is in the drive.  I stuck the disc in my linux box, typed "dd if=/dev/hdc of=oblivion.iso", then burned a copy of the disc, and play using that while the original sits in its case.  At the time, Oblivion was held up as a shining example of a hugely successful PC game which didn't use any real DRM to speak of.  From what I've read online, it sounds like the GOTY edition came with SecuROM.</p><p>I've since  migrated to the "toaster" school of gaming and bought a 360 and a Wii.  No more Starforce, no more SecuROM, no more Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you can feel " fair " ... Several boxes with games I bought collect dust on the shelf , while I play torrented versions .
Not gon na risk putting these in my drive .
It took me weeks to get my DVD-RW working fully again after SecuROM bundled with Oblivion broke the drivers beyond repair and I could n't even make copies of my private data.You need to get the original edition .
It has no DRM other than a simple check to make sure the disc is in the drive .
I stuck the disc in my linux box , typed " dd if = /dev/hdc of = oblivion.iso " , then burned a copy of the disc , and play using that while the original sits in its case .
At the time , Oblivion was held up as a shining example of a hugely successful PC game which did n't use any real DRM to speak of .
From what I 've read online , it sounds like the GOTY edition came with SecuROM.I 've since migrated to the " toaster " school of gaming and bought a 360 and a Wii .
No more Starforce , no more SecuROM , no more Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you can feel "fair"... Several boxes with games I bought collect dust on the shelf, while I play torrented versions.
Not gonna risk putting these in my drive.
It took me weeks to get my DVD-RW working fully again after SecuROM bundled with Oblivion broke the drivers beyond repair and I couldn't even make copies of my private data.You need to get the original edition.
It has no DRM other than a simple check to make sure the disc is in the drive.
I stuck the disc in my linux box, typed "dd if=/dev/hdc of=oblivion.iso", then burned a copy of the disc, and play using that while the original sits in its case.
At the time, Oblivion was held up as a shining example of a hugely successful PC game which didn't use any real DRM to speak of.
From what I've read online, it sounds like the GOTY edition came with SecuROM.I've since  migrated to the "toaster" school of gaming and bought a 360 and a Wii.
No more Starforce, no more SecuROM, no more Windows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656470</id>
	<title>Re:Again?</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1262713560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYE still sells CDs for $19. God only knows who their market consists of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYE still sells CDs for $ 19 .
God only knows who their market consists of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYE still sells CDs for $19.
God only knows who their market consists of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654424</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>pfleming</author>
	<datestamp>1262705160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTA Disney is not participating. Of course it's so they can continue their limited time offers of movies and return them "to the vault" for another 10 years. This would put their movies on the same footing as everyone else's and they've managed to turn the "scarcity" into a marketing tool and sales enhancer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA Disney is not participating .
Of course it 's so they can continue their limited time offers of movies and return them " to the vault " for another 10 years .
This would put their movies on the same footing as everyone else 's and they 've managed to turn the " scarcity " into a marketing tool and sales enhancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA Disney is not participating.
Of course it's so they can continue their limited time offers of movies and return them "to the vault" for another 10 years.
This would put their movies on the same footing as everyone else's and they've managed to turn the "scarcity" into a marketing tool and sales enhancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655710</id>
	<title>Re:You're paying for the content , not the format</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262710800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maximum demand: everybody on earth<br>
Maximum supply: infinite (it's digital, damnit)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maximum demand : everybody on earth Maximum supply : infinite ( it 's digital , damnit )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maximum demand: everybody on earth
Maximum supply: infinite (it's digital, damnit)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654718</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262706660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AnyDVD will fix that problem for you.  Not only can you rip movies with it, it will also shut down the DRM checks that keeps you from doing what you wanted to do with "incompatable/noncompliant hardware".</p><p>My personal pet peev these days is all the comercials/previews they are stuffing into DVDs that they expect you to watch by disabling the menu functions until they are done playing.</p><p>Rent-rip-strip menues-watch until I'm sick of it-delete</p><p>That is the business model I subscribe to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AnyDVD will fix that problem for you .
Not only can you rip movies with it , it will also shut down the DRM checks that keeps you from doing what you wanted to do with " incompatable/noncompliant hardware " .My personal pet peev these days is all the comercials/previews they are stuffing into DVDs that they expect you to watch by disabling the menu functions until they are done playing.Rent-rip-strip menues-watch until I 'm sick of it-deleteThat is the business model I subscribe to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AnyDVD will fix that problem for you.
Not only can you rip movies with it, it will also shut down the DRM checks that keeps you from doing what you wanted to do with "incompatable/noncompliant hardware".My personal pet peev these days is all the comercials/previews they are stuffing into DVDs that they expect you to watch by disabling the menu functions until they are done playing.Rent-rip-strip menues-watch until I'm sick of it-deleteThat is the business model I subscribe to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30679222</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>mldi</author>
	<datestamp>1262801160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware?</p></div><p>"Hancock 2" will only be available in this new platform.</p></div><p>I'm still waiting to hear the incentive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware ?
" Hancock 2 " will only be available in this new platform.I 'm still waiting to hear the incentive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware?
"Hancock 2" will only be available in this new platform.I'm still waiting to hear the incentive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654240</id>
	<title>From the article:</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1262704020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It might sound technical, but it could be crucial to persuading consumers to buy all the splashy new Internet-connected gear that tech companies will demonstrate at C.E.S., like HDTVs and set-top boxes that can download TV shows and films.</p></div><p>I have a set-top box which can download TV and films. It's a Windows PC with a BitTorrent client. No doubt there are other solutions, but mine works without DRM.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might sound technical , but it could be crucial to persuading consumers to buy all the splashy new Internet-connected gear that tech companies will demonstrate at C.E.S. , like HDTVs and set-top boxes that can download TV shows and films.I have a set-top box which can download TV and films .
It 's a Windows PC with a BitTorrent client .
No doubt there are other solutions , but mine works without DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might sound technical, but it could be crucial to persuading consumers to buy all the splashy new Internet-connected gear that tech companies will demonstrate at C.E.S., like HDTVs and set-top boxes that can download TV shows and films.I have a set-top box which can download TV and films.
It's a Windows PC with a BitTorrent client.
No doubt there are other solutions, but mine works without DRM.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655744</id>
	<title>!Pirating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262710920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm becoming increasingly more suspicious that all of these flawed, redundant, and ineffective (so-called) anti-piracy technologies are for one thing: licensing fees, but not the kind you are thinking of.</p><p>As US corporations move further and further away from producing anything actually physical, their revenues will come more and more from their Intellectual Property licensing fees.</p><p>As an example, if you are a chip vendor, and you want to create an HDMI controller that does HD, how many different companies do you have pay licensing fees to?  What have these companies actually done to see your product through?  It does *nothing* for *anyone*, except inflate the price of consumer goods because of the requisite licensing fees.  (Especially for HDCP!?!)  Every TV sold supporting HDCP pays $X to: Digital Content Protection, LLC, a subsidiary of Intel.  It's basically a tax on making consumer goods for US markets/media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm becoming increasingly more suspicious that all of these flawed , redundant , and ineffective ( so-called ) anti-piracy technologies are for one thing : licensing fees , but not the kind you are thinking of.As US corporations move further and further away from producing anything actually physical , their revenues will come more and more from their Intellectual Property licensing fees.As an example , if you are a chip vendor , and you want to create an HDMI controller that does HD , how many different companies do you have pay licensing fees to ?
What have these companies actually done to see your product through ?
It does * nothing * for * anyone * , except inflate the price of consumer goods because of the requisite licensing fees .
( Especially for HDCP ! ? !
) Every TV sold supporting HDCP pays $ X to : Digital Content Protection , LLC , a subsidiary of Intel .
It 's basically a tax on making consumer goods for US markets/media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm becoming increasingly more suspicious that all of these flawed, redundant, and ineffective (so-called) anti-piracy technologies are for one thing: licensing fees, but not the kind you are thinking of.As US corporations move further and further away from producing anything actually physical, their revenues will come more and more from their Intellectual Property licensing fees.As an example, if you are a chip vendor, and you want to create an HDMI controller that does HD, how many different companies do you have pay licensing fees to?
What have these companies actually done to see your product through?
It does *nothing* for *anyone*, except inflate the price of consumer goods because of the requisite licensing fees.
(Especially for HDCP!?!
)  Every TV sold supporting HDCP pays $X to: Digital Content Protection, LLC, a subsidiary of Intel.
It's basically a tax on making consumer goods for US markets/media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30666972</id>
	<title>Re:You're paying for the content , not the format</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262771640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like your parallel with genie, but don't agree that free market is not working for IP. Quite the contrary, the fact that people prefer to copy the album for near zero value rather than buy it for 10$ means that the free market is doing what it is intended to do - favor most efficient solutions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like your parallel with genie , but do n't agree that free market is not working for IP .
Quite the contrary , the fact that people prefer to copy the album for near zero value rather than buy it for 10 $ means that the free market is doing what it is intended to do - favor most efficient solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like your parallel with genie, but don't agree that free market is not working for IP.
Quite the contrary, the fact that people prefer to copy the album for near zero value rather than buy it for 10$ means that the free market is doing what it is intended to do - favor most efficient solutions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657856</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>MartinG</author>
	<datestamp>1262717940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't particularly care about physical copies either, but I do want the right to sell my purchase to others or give as a gift (just like I can with books, cds, dvds, etc.)</p><p>I also want to be able to do whatever the law allows, not what some technical system controlled by the industry allows, and that includes future changes to the law.  In short:  NO TECHNICAL RESTRICTIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't particularly care about physical copies either , but I do want the right to sell my purchase to others or give as a gift ( just like I can with books , cds , dvds , etc .
) I also want to be able to do whatever the law allows , not what some technical system controlled by the industry allows , and that includes future changes to the law .
In short : NO TECHNICAL RESTRICTIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't particularly care about physical copies either, but I do want the right to sell my purchase to others or give as a gift (just like I can with books, cds, dvds, etc.
)I also want to be able to do whatever the law allows, not what some technical system controlled by the industry allows, and that includes future changes to the law.
In short:  NO TECHNICAL RESTRICTIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654690</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on how big</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1262706480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that there has to be a revenue stream to support the company.   If the DRM becomes obsolete, the revenue stream dries up.   As that point it's only a matter of time before your media stops working.   ICANN's revenue stream is not at risk, because we have to pay every year to renew our domains, and ICANN gets a cut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that there has to be a revenue stream to support the company .
If the DRM becomes obsolete , the revenue stream dries up .
As that point it 's only a matter of time before your media stops working .
ICANN 's revenue stream is not at risk , because we have to pay every year to renew our domains , and ICANN gets a cut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that there has to be a revenue stream to support the company.
If the DRM becomes obsolete, the revenue stream dries up.
As that point it's only a matter of time before your media stops working.
ICANN's revenue stream is not at risk, because we have to pay every year to renew our domains, and ICANN gets a cut.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656204</id>
	<title>Contact them and let your voice be heard.</title>
	<author>MeSat</author>
	<datestamp>1262712540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about you but as a Linux user, I will contact them and let them know that if it doesn't support Linux then I really don't care about their product.  The day I cannot get a product and run it on my Linux machines is the day I will stick to illegal downloads.<br> <br>

This also goes for being able to play the product on a device that isn't connected to the Internet.
<br> <br>


<a href="http://www.decellc.com/" title="decellc.com" rel="nofollow">Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem</a> [decellc.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you but as a Linux user , I will contact them and let them know that if it does n't support Linux then I really do n't care about their product .
The day I can not get a product and run it on my Linux machines is the day I will stick to illegal downloads .
This also goes for being able to play the product on a device that is n't connected to the Internet .
Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem [ decellc.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you but as a Linux user, I will contact them and let them know that if it doesn't support Linux then I really don't care about their product.
The day I cannot get a product and run it on my Linux machines is the day I will stick to illegal downloads.
This also goes for being able to play the product on a device that isn't connected to the Internet.
Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem [decellc.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30671208</id>
	<title>Re:Again?  No, just don't buy it.</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1262799960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You either sell me a physical tangible object I can do with as I please, or a license to enjoy the content, and when your copyright expires it better be unlocked, or you will release the technical details for unlocking it.  That's what I tell everyone who advertises to me - usually on the phone if I can find a number.</p><p>Under the former, it's like a book where I can lend it to friends or take it with me to the beach or a hotel and enjoy the content.  If I want to rip out the pages, or specific words, and paste them together in a different way, I can.  Specifically for audio content, I am allowed to make a copy for archival purposes, format shift them into a format for my portable audio device, or allow a friend to listen.  As long as I don't violate IP laws of course, so I can't just burn copies for all of my friends (although who would know?  Also, that last bit is a legal grey area, I'm just saying I'm not asking for the right to violate copyright.)</p><p>If it's the latter then I have a license to listen which cannot be revoked when your DRM server goes down, and since you licensed the audio not the physical object if my CD gets scratched, you replace it.  If my hard drive with your audio on it gets hit by lightning, you replace the audio file.  My license to listen does not end just because I walk away from my desktop, I will losslessly format shift because you are not selling the data file.</p><p>In both of these cases, and one more, DRM you can't work around has no place.</p><p>The last case is when your copyright expires.  I don't see any exception to the anti-circumvention laws for works where the copyright is expired.  In infinity minus one years, we will have the ability to disseminate software to unlock the first generation of DRM (MacroVision, Windows Media, and CSS) but it would be illegal to disseminate until every work using that scheme came out of copyright.  Probably you can make an argument and win a court case, but that require time and money - a big gamble for most people.  They never thought of that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You either sell me a physical tangible object I can do with as I please , or a license to enjoy the content , and when your copyright expires it better be unlocked , or you will release the technical details for unlocking it .
That 's what I tell everyone who advertises to me - usually on the phone if I can find a number.Under the former , it 's like a book where I can lend it to friends or take it with me to the beach or a hotel and enjoy the content .
If I want to rip out the pages , or specific words , and paste them together in a different way , I can .
Specifically for audio content , I am allowed to make a copy for archival purposes , format shift them into a format for my portable audio device , or allow a friend to listen .
As long as I do n't violate IP laws of course , so I ca n't just burn copies for all of my friends ( although who would know ?
Also , that last bit is a legal grey area , I 'm just saying I 'm not asking for the right to violate copyright .
) If it 's the latter then I have a license to listen which can not be revoked when your DRM server goes down , and since you licensed the audio not the physical object if my CD gets scratched , you replace it .
If my hard drive with your audio on it gets hit by lightning , you replace the audio file .
My license to listen does not end just because I walk away from my desktop , I will losslessly format shift because you are not selling the data file.In both of these cases , and one more , DRM you ca n't work around has no place.The last case is when your copyright expires .
I do n't see any exception to the anti-circumvention laws for works where the copyright is expired .
In infinity minus one years , we will have the ability to disseminate software to unlock the first generation of DRM ( MacroVision , Windows Media , and CSS ) but it would be illegal to disseminate until every work using that scheme came out of copyright .
Probably you can make an argument and win a court case , but that require time and money - a big gamble for most people .
They never thought of that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You either sell me a physical tangible object I can do with as I please, or a license to enjoy the content, and when your copyright expires it better be unlocked, or you will release the technical details for unlocking it.
That's what I tell everyone who advertises to me - usually on the phone if I can find a number.Under the former, it's like a book where I can lend it to friends or take it with me to the beach or a hotel and enjoy the content.
If I want to rip out the pages, or specific words, and paste them together in a different way, I can.
Specifically for audio content, I am allowed to make a copy for archival purposes, format shift them into a format for my portable audio device, or allow a friend to listen.
As long as I don't violate IP laws of course, so I can't just burn copies for all of my friends (although who would know?
Also, that last bit is a legal grey area, I'm just saying I'm not asking for the right to violate copyright.
)If it's the latter then I have a license to listen which cannot be revoked when your DRM server goes down, and since you licensed the audio not the physical object if my CD gets scratched, you replace it.
If my hard drive with your audio on it gets hit by lightning, you replace the audio file.
My license to listen does not end just because I walk away from my desktop, I will losslessly format shift because you are not selling the data file.In both of these cases, and one more, DRM you can't work around has no place.The last case is when your copyright expires.
I don't see any exception to the anti-circumvention laws for works where the copyright is expired.
In infinity minus one years, we will have the ability to disseminate software to unlock the first generation of DRM (MacroVision, Windows Media, and CSS) but it would be illegal to disseminate until every work using that scheme came out of copyright.
Probably you can make an argument and win a court case, but that require time and money - a big gamble for most people.
They never thought of that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656192</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading summary</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1262712540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it is not laxer.  It puts you at the mercy of one central key server.  At best, if some company goes bankrupt, their key might disappear from the server.  At worst, some employee gets pissed and deletes all of them.  Maybe they have backups, maybe they don't, but you are at their mercy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is not laxer .
It puts you at the mercy of one central key server .
At best , if some company goes bankrupt , their key might disappear from the server .
At worst , some employee gets pissed and deletes all of them .
Maybe they have backups , maybe they do n't , but you are at their mercy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it is not laxer.
It puts you at the mercy of one central key server.
At best, if some company goes bankrupt, their key might disappear from the server.
At worst, some employee gets pissed and deletes all of them.
Maybe they have backups, maybe they don't, but you are at their mercy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654374</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>h890231398021</author>
	<datestamp>1262704800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My ideal these days would be to just buy a license (and I use the term deliberately) and for them to store the content in their cloud and for me (in a Steam type way) to then be able to activate that content on my various different devices.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You don't really want this because the content providers' notion of their "content" will certainly include stuff like those unskippable ads and other crap that drive you insane.  With the content stored "in the could" as you propose, there's likely no way around this type of annoyance, and in fact with the content in the cloud they can change the ads, add additional ones, etc. whenever they like.  And don't for a minute think they won't try to extract additional money from you by "licensing" you the stream for only a certain amount of time, after which you need to renew, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My ideal these days would be to just buy a license ( and I use the term deliberately ) and for them to store the content in their cloud and for me ( in a Steam type way ) to then be able to activate that content on my various different devices .
You do n't really want this because the content providers ' notion of their " content " will certainly include stuff like those unskippable ads and other crap that drive you insane .
With the content stored " in the could " as you propose , there 's likely no way around this type of annoyance , and in fact with the content in the cloud they can change the ads , add additional ones , etc .
whenever they like .
And do n't for a minute think they wo n't try to extract additional money from you by " licensing " you the stream for only a certain amount of time , after which you need to renew , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ideal these days would be to just buy a license (and I use the term deliberately) and for them to store the content in their cloud and for me (in a Steam type way) to then be able to activate that content on my various different devices.
You don't really want this because the content providers' notion of their "content" will certainly include stuff like those unskippable ads and other crap that drive you insane.
With the content stored "in the could" as you propose, there's likely no way around this type of annoyance, and in fact with the content in the cloud they can change the ads, add additional ones, etc.
whenever they like.
And don't for a minute think they won't try to extract additional money from you by "licensing" you the stream for only a certain amount of time, after which you need to renew, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654298</id>
	<title>Re:Plays for Sure!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262704380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yeah. Except when it doesn't. No internet connection? No movie for you. Rights locker company hit by power failure? No movies for anyone.</i></p><p>You also forgot...</p><p>Rights locker company files for bankruptcy<br>Rights locker company decides to stop supporting this specific DRM scheme (like PlaysForSure)<br>Rights locker company upgrading the DRM to DECEv2<br>Someone hacks the device you're using and they decide to revoke keys in devices without a hardware upgrade<br>The movie studio decides that 'buying' a movie means you only get to play it an arbitrary number of times</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Except when it does n't .
No internet connection ?
No movie for you .
Rights locker company hit by power failure ?
No movies for anyone.You also forgot...Rights locker company files for bankruptcyRights locker company decides to stop supporting this specific DRM scheme ( like PlaysForSure ) Rights locker company upgrading the DRM to DECEv2Someone hacks the device you 're using and they decide to revoke keys in devices without a hardware upgradeThe movie studio decides that 'buying ' a movie means you only get to play it an arbitrary number of times</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Except when it doesn't.
No internet connection?
No movie for you.
Rights locker company hit by power failure?
No movies for anyone.You also forgot...Rights locker company files for bankruptcyRights locker company decides to stop supporting this specific DRM scheme (like PlaysForSure)Rights locker company upgrading the DRM to DECEv2Someone hacks the device you're using and they decide to revoke keys in devices without a hardware upgradeThe movie studio decides that 'buying' a movie means you only get to play it an arbitrary number of times</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658936</id>
	<title>I had that idea years ago</title>
	<author>Rene S. Hollan</author>
	<datestamp>1262722380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The notion is that content you license is encrypted to private keys unique to you, stored in secure trust stores that you possess, but are tamper-proof[1].</p><p>You have a limited ability to check out and check in copies of these keys to other devices to share, perhaps simultaneously, content you've licensed to a limited audience. Backup copies of your keys, lest all key stores fail, can be held in escrow for you.</p><p>Check out and check in of keys can be done with other trusted secure stores with trust established with well known PKI techniques.</p><p>The biggest problems are (a) this can't recognize fair use excerpts because there is no technical way to recognize fair use, (b) escrow services might be privacy risks, and, of course (c) [1] for some definition of "tamper proof" -- it is well known that possession of secret information, even in "tamper proof" stores is not to be considered secure -- the bane of ALL DRM schemes. Further, it is only as strong as the weakest such trust store.</p><p>Still, this is no weaker than <b>present</b> DRM schemes, though far more convenient for the consumer who wishes to purchase local caches of content.</p><p>Streaming solves the problem of local copies of content available for decryption at leisure, though this is not hard to circumvent with network capture tools. Rather, it offers the convenience of not having to maintain a local cache. But, for that to be accepted, it has to (a) be as reliable as having one, (b) be as inexpensive as having one. Compare electrical power: how many of us have generators in case the power fails? A few, but not many, I'd wager. Of course, power from a generator is generally <b>more</b> expensive than from the grid, even ignoring the capital equipment costs. One does not pay for bandwidth use on one's own LAN, but one <b>does</b> pay for internet bandwidth. Unless it remains a fixed cost for "unlimited" use, each stream will cost money, even if there is not a "per viewing" cost by the gatekeeper.</p><p>Right now, I can rent a move on a DVD for two days for $2 from a rental kiosk, rent it in high definition for $5-$6 on demand from the cable company (again, for two days), or own a cache of it on DVD for $20. If I'm willing to pay $20, therefore, I should have unfettered access to the content without additional cost, whenever I want.</p><p>Let's say that "unlimited" internet bandwidth remains a fixed cost, for some reasonable value of "unlimited". (I expect that bandwidth costs will go down over time for this to remain true, within normal price inflation: internet access always cost me $60-$100 for "adequate" bandwidth since about 2000, where "adequate" increased over those ten years.) And, content providers and access providers are "reliable". And, content providers don't go out of business. <b>Then</b> this model makes sense.</p><p>But, what if the provider of all your "unlimited viewing license" content suddenly goes out of business? What then? One should certainly have the option to purchase a local cache (for the cost of the media) so one can continue to enjoy it. Or, be able to download it to one's own local cache for free.</p><p>I just don't see the infrastructure and licensing in place for that kind of model, and I do not want to be constrained to "pay per view" for everything, all the time: I want an insurance mechanism against content providers' bankruptcy, perhaps service disruptions, etc.</p><p>I also want copyright content to enter the public domain in a timely manner (which such mechanisms could automatically enforce), but that's a separate issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The notion is that content you license is encrypted to private keys unique to you , stored in secure trust stores that you possess , but are tamper-proof [ 1 ] .You have a limited ability to check out and check in copies of these keys to other devices to share , perhaps simultaneously , content you 've licensed to a limited audience .
Backup copies of your keys , lest all key stores fail , can be held in escrow for you.Check out and check in of keys can be done with other trusted secure stores with trust established with well known PKI techniques.The biggest problems are ( a ) this ca n't recognize fair use excerpts because there is no technical way to recognize fair use , ( b ) escrow services might be privacy risks , and , of course ( c ) [ 1 ] for some definition of " tamper proof " -- it is well known that possession of secret information , even in " tamper proof " stores is not to be considered secure -- the bane of ALL DRM schemes .
Further , it is only as strong as the weakest such trust store.Still , this is no weaker than present DRM schemes , though far more convenient for the consumer who wishes to purchase local caches of content.Streaming solves the problem of local copies of content available for decryption at leisure , though this is not hard to circumvent with network capture tools .
Rather , it offers the convenience of not having to maintain a local cache .
But , for that to be accepted , it has to ( a ) be as reliable as having one , ( b ) be as inexpensive as having one .
Compare electrical power : how many of us have generators in case the power fails ?
A few , but not many , I 'd wager .
Of course , power from a generator is generally more expensive than from the grid , even ignoring the capital equipment costs .
One does not pay for bandwidth use on one 's own LAN , but one does pay for internet bandwidth .
Unless it remains a fixed cost for " unlimited " use , each stream will cost money , even if there is not a " per viewing " cost by the gatekeeper.Right now , I can rent a move on a DVD for two days for $ 2 from a rental kiosk , rent it in high definition for $ 5- $ 6 on demand from the cable company ( again , for two days ) , or own a cache of it on DVD for $ 20 .
If I 'm willing to pay $ 20 , therefore , I should have unfettered access to the content without additional cost , whenever I want.Let 's say that " unlimited " internet bandwidth remains a fixed cost , for some reasonable value of " unlimited " .
( I expect that bandwidth costs will go down over time for this to remain true , within normal price inflation : internet access always cost me $ 60- $ 100 for " adequate " bandwidth since about 2000 , where " adequate " increased over those ten years .
) And , content providers and access providers are " reliable " .
And , content providers do n't go out of business .
Then this model makes sense.But , what if the provider of all your " unlimited viewing license " content suddenly goes out of business ?
What then ?
One should certainly have the option to purchase a local cache ( for the cost of the media ) so one can continue to enjoy it .
Or , be able to download it to one 's own local cache for free.I just do n't see the infrastructure and licensing in place for that kind of model , and I do not want to be constrained to " pay per view " for everything , all the time : I want an insurance mechanism against content providers ' bankruptcy , perhaps service disruptions , etc.I also want copyright content to enter the public domain in a timely manner ( which such mechanisms could automatically enforce ) , but that 's a separate issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The notion is that content you license is encrypted to private keys unique to you, stored in secure trust stores that you possess, but are tamper-proof[1].You have a limited ability to check out and check in copies of these keys to other devices to share, perhaps simultaneously, content you've licensed to a limited audience.
Backup copies of your keys, lest all key stores fail, can be held in escrow for you.Check out and check in of keys can be done with other trusted secure stores with trust established with well known PKI techniques.The biggest problems are (a) this can't recognize fair use excerpts because there is no technical way to recognize fair use, (b) escrow services might be privacy risks, and, of course (c) [1] for some definition of "tamper proof" -- it is well known that possession of secret information, even in "tamper proof" stores is not to be considered secure -- the bane of ALL DRM schemes.
Further, it is only as strong as the weakest such trust store.Still, this is no weaker than present DRM schemes, though far more convenient for the consumer who wishes to purchase local caches of content.Streaming solves the problem of local copies of content available for decryption at leisure, though this is not hard to circumvent with network capture tools.
Rather, it offers the convenience of not having to maintain a local cache.
But, for that to be accepted, it has to (a) be as reliable as having one, (b) be as inexpensive as having one.
Compare electrical power: how many of us have generators in case the power fails?
A few, but not many, I'd wager.
Of course, power from a generator is generally more expensive than from the grid, even ignoring the capital equipment costs.
One does not pay for bandwidth use on one's own LAN, but one does pay for internet bandwidth.
Unless it remains a fixed cost for "unlimited" use, each stream will cost money, even if there is not a "per viewing" cost by the gatekeeper.Right now, I can rent a move on a DVD for two days for $2 from a rental kiosk, rent it in high definition for $5-$6 on demand from the cable company (again, for two days), or own a cache of it on DVD for $20.
If I'm willing to pay $20, therefore, I should have unfettered access to the content without additional cost, whenever I want.Let's say that "unlimited" internet bandwidth remains a fixed cost, for some reasonable value of "unlimited".
(I expect that bandwidth costs will go down over time for this to remain true, within normal price inflation: internet access always cost me $60-$100 for "adequate" bandwidth since about 2000, where "adequate" increased over those ten years.
) And, content providers and access providers are "reliable".
And, content providers don't go out of business.
Then this model makes sense.But, what if the provider of all your "unlimited viewing license" content suddenly goes out of business?
What then?
One should certainly have the option to purchase a local cache (for the cost of the media) so one can continue to enjoy it.
Or, be able to download it to one's own local cache for free.I just don't see the infrastructure and licensing in place for that kind of model, and I do not want to be constrained to "pay per view" for everything, all the time: I want an insurance mechanism against content providers' bankruptcy, perhaps service disruptions, etc.I also want copyright content to enter the public domain in a timely manner (which such mechanisms could automatically enforce), but that's a separate issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654642</id>
	<title>All-hardware encryption?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262706360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I'll bite. What the heck is all-hardware encryption? Granted, I'm sure it's possible to implement decryption algorithms in silicon, instead of as software, but what's to prevent some enterprising programmer from creating a *software* implementation of the decryption algo? How can you *force* encryption/decryption to be all-hardware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 'll bite .
What the heck is all-hardware encryption ?
Granted , I 'm sure it 's possible to implement decryption algorithms in silicon , instead of as software , but what 's to prevent some enterprising programmer from creating a * software * implementation of the decryption algo ?
How can you * force * encryption/decryption to be all-hardware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I'll bite.
What the heck is all-hardware encryption?
Granted, I'm sure it's possible to implement decryption algorithms in silicon, instead of as software, but what's to prevent some enterprising programmer from creating a *software* implementation of the decryption algo?
How can you *force* encryption/decryption to be all-hardware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655456</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>Big Boss</author>
	<datestamp>1262709840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem we have here is that they are under the delusion that some DRM scheme will drive the price back up by stopping the pirates. They just don't get that people will always find a way to do it. They are competing with a zero cost distribution system that has no irritating restrictions on use like un-skippable ads and "warnings" that are stripped by the pirates anyway. So the free version is MORE valuable to the customers.</p><p>Your suggestions are great, I would buy into a system like that right now. I would also require the ability to download the content, not just streaming. If the download protocol supports receiving bits in order, it's easy enough to do both. I'd even be OK with a tiered pricing model that provided for new releases being 1.5-2x the cost for the first couple months or so. And I need the content available in HD, 720p minimum, 1080p preferred, with a decent bitrate. With h264, that's about 15G for a movie in 1080p.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem we have here is that they are under the delusion that some DRM scheme will drive the price back up by stopping the pirates .
They just do n't get that people will always find a way to do it .
They are competing with a zero cost distribution system that has no irritating restrictions on use like un-skippable ads and " warnings " that are stripped by the pirates anyway .
So the free version is MORE valuable to the customers.Your suggestions are great , I would buy into a system like that right now .
I would also require the ability to download the content , not just streaming .
If the download protocol supports receiving bits in order , it 's easy enough to do both .
I 'd even be OK with a tiered pricing model that provided for new releases being 1.5-2x the cost for the first couple months or so .
And I need the content available in HD , 720p minimum , 1080p preferred , with a decent bitrate .
With h264 , that 's about 15G for a movie in 1080p .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem we have here is that they are under the delusion that some DRM scheme will drive the price back up by stopping the pirates.
They just don't get that people will always find a way to do it.
They are competing with a zero cost distribution system that has no irritating restrictions on use like un-skippable ads and "warnings" that are stripped by the pirates anyway.
So the free version is MORE valuable to the customers.Your suggestions are great, I would buy into a system like that right now.
I would also require the ability to download the content, not just streaming.
If the download protocol supports receiving bits in order, it's easy enough to do both.
I'd even be OK with a tiered pricing model that provided for new releases being 1.5-2x the cost for the first couple months or so.
And I need the content available in HD, 720p minimum, 1080p preferred, with a decent bitrate.
With h264, that's about 15G for a movie in 1080p.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655274</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1262709060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, sure.  Here's the classic rant: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt4BpnfAN-o&amp;feature=video\_response" title="youtube.com">How anti-piracy screws over people who buy PC games</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , sure .
Here 's the classic rant : How anti-piracy screws over people who buy PC games [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, sure.
Here's the classic rant: How anti-piracy screws over people who buy PC games [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655978</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading summary</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1262711760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> this is actually laxer than the current DRM employed on digital content distribution - where you're locked into the device you download it to</p></div></blockquote><p>Because, of course, being locked down to all the devices that support the DRM is so much better than being locked down to one device that people would never want true freedom.</p><p>Besides, even today you're not tied to one device with DRM. Got an old iTunes song? Great, you've got the options of iPod or iTunes on Windows or on Mac - that's mobile and the two main types of computer right there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is actually laxer than the current DRM employed on digital content distribution - where you 're locked into the device you download it toBecause , of course , being locked down to all the devices that support the DRM is so much better than being locked down to one device that people would never want true freedom.Besides , even today you 're not tied to one device with DRM .
Got an old iTunes song ?
Great , you 've got the options of iPod or iTunes on Windows or on Mac - that 's mobile and the two main types of computer right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> this is actually laxer than the current DRM employed on digital content distribution - where you're locked into the device you download it toBecause, of course, being locked down to all the devices that support the DRM is so much better than being locked down to one device that people would never want true freedom.Besides, even today you're not tied to one device with DRM.
Got an old iTunes song?
Great, you've got the options of iPod or iTunes on Windows or on Mac - that's mobile and the two main types of computer right there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655520</id>
	<title>Play it your way? No way!</title>
	<author>whyde</author>
	<datestamp>1262710080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of these key escrow schemes, I guarantee, will retain the "rights" of the content creators to force you to sit through the previews, warnings, and tedious menus each time you want to watch "your" content regardless of where you play it, every time you play it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of these key escrow schemes , I guarantee , will retain the " rights " of the content creators to force you to sit through the previews , warnings , and tedious menus each time you want to watch " your " content regardless of where you play it , every time you play it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of these key escrow schemes, I guarantee, will retain the "rights" of the content creators to force you to sit through the previews, warnings, and tedious menus each time you want to watch "your" content regardless of where you play it, every time you play it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654756</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1262706780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll come out and say that I agree with you... in theory.  In theory, I wish I could pay a price and then be able to see my purchased movie anywhere.  Real-world problems interfere with that ideal, however.</p><p>Movie studios won't just put the movie up somewhere where I could get it for free.  They'll want to make sure that I'm actually authorized to watch the movie.  This means they'll rely on DRM.  This, in turn, means they're likely to rely on one location for authorizations to take place.  If those authorization servers go offline, you lose access to the content you've paid for and need to pay again for access to it.  In addition, movie studios aren't going to want to run servers letting you download a file over and over for one small payment.  They'll want recurring payments.</p><p>This is why I think that streaming is the better option.  Something along the lines of Netflix.  Pay a fee and get access to the library of content.  As long as you pay your monthly fee, you can watch as many movies/TV shows/whatever as your plan allows.  (I'd prefer unlimited, but we are talking about movie studios here.)  There should be many different companies doing this providing access to the same content.  This way competition will keep prices low and quality high.  (Besides, I'm sure the movie studios don't want Netflix to be to them what Apple/iTunes was to the music industry.)</p><p>Of course, I already have a Netflix account and love streaming via Roku, so I'm mostly there.  Now if the movie studios would just get with the times and let their content be streamed.  Heck, I'd even accept a 6 month lag on DVD release versus streaming release if they're that concerned with streaming cutting into DVD profits!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll come out and say that I agree with you... in theory .
In theory , I wish I could pay a price and then be able to see my purchased movie anywhere .
Real-world problems interfere with that ideal , however.Movie studios wo n't just put the movie up somewhere where I could get it for free .
They 'll want to make sure that I 'm actually authorized to watch the movie .
This means they 'll rely on DRM .
This , in turn , means they 're likely to rely on one location for authorizations to take place .
If those authorization servers go offline , you lose access to the content you 've paid for and need to pay again for access to it .
In addition , movie studios are n't going to want to run servers letting you download a file over and over for one small payment .
They 'll want recurring payments.This is why I think that streaming is the better option .
Something along the lines of Netflix .
Pay a fee and get access to the library of content .
As long as you pay your monthly fee , you can watch as many movies/TV shows/whatever as your plan allows .
( I 'd prefer unlimited , but we are talking about movie studios here .
) There should be many different companies doing this providing access to the same content .
This way competition will keep prices low and quality high .
( Besides , I 'm sure the movie studios do n't want Netflix to be to them what Apple/iTunes was to the music industry .
) Of course , I already have a Netflix account and love streaming via Roku , so I 'm mostly there .
Now if the movie studios would just get with the times and let their content be streamed .
Heck , I 'd even accept a 6 month lag on DVD release versus streaming release if they 're that concerned with streaming cutting into DVD profits !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll come out and say that I agree with you... in theory.
In theory, I wish I could pay a price and then be able to see my purchased movie anywhere.
Real-world problems interfere with that ideal, however.Movie studios won't just put the movie up somewhere where I could get it for free.
They'll want to make sure that I'm actually authorized to watch the movie.
This means they'll rely on DRM.
This, in turn, means they're likely to rely on one location for authorizations to take place.
If those authorization servers go offline, you lose access to the content you've paid for and need to pay again for access to it.
In addition, movie studios aren't going to want to run servers letting you download a file over and over for one small payment.
They'll want recurring payments.This is why I think that streaming is the better option.
Something along the lines of Netflix.
Pay a fee and get access to the library of content.
As long as you pay your monthly fee, you can watch as many movies/TV shows/whatever as your plan allows.
(I'd prefer unlimited, but we are talking about movie studios here.
)  There should be many different companies doing this providing access to the same content.
This way competition will keep prices low and quality high.
(Besides, I'm sure the movie studios don't want Netflix to be to them what Apple/iTunes was to the music industry.
)Of course, I already have a Netflix account and love streaming via Roku, so I'm mostly there.
Now if the movie studios would just get with the times and let their content be streamed.
Heck, I'd even accept a 6 month lag on DVD release versus streaming release if they're that concerned with streaming cutting into DVD profits!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655014</id>
	<title>I like their justification for it</title>
	<author>loftwyr</author>
	<datestamp>1262707920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Hollywood needs consumers to buy more digital content. DVD and Blu-ray revenues contribute significantly to Hollywood&rsquo;s bottom line, but spending on those discs is dropping sharply. It declined 3.2 percent to $4 billion in the third quarter of last year. Digital sales were up nearly 20 percent in the quarter, but amounted to a relatively paltry $420 million.</i></p><p>Let's do some math, shall we?</p><p>3.2\% of 4 billion == 128 million<br>20\% of 420 million == a paltry 84 million.<br>Net difference?  44 million?</p><p>Jeez, looks like they got off easy.  The economy collapses and their sales were down less than 1\%.  I feel sorry for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hollywood needs consumers to buy more digital content .
DVD and Blu-ray revenues contribute significantly to Hollywood    s bottom line , but spending on those discs is dropping sharply .
It declined 3.2 percent to $ 4 billion in the third quarter of last year .
Digital sales were up nearly 20 percent in the quarter , but amounted to a relatively paltry $ 420 million.Let 's do some math , shall we ? 3.2 \ % of 4 billion = = 128 million20 \ % of 420 million = = a paltry 84 million.Net difference ?
44 million ? Jeez , looks like they got off easy .
The economy collapses and their sales were down less than 1 \ % .
I feel sorry for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hollywood needs consumers to buy more digital content.
DVD and Blu-ray revenues contribute significantly to Hollywood’s bottom line, but spending on those discs is dropping sharply.
It declined 3.2 percent to $4 billion in the third quarter of last year.
Digital sales were up nearly 20 percent in the quarter, but amounted to a relatively paltry $420 million.Let's do some math, shall we?3.2\% of 4 billion == 128 million20\% of 420 million == a paltry 84 million.Net difference?
44 million?Jeez, looks like they got off easy.
The economy collapses and their sales were down less than 1\%.
I feel sorry for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658806</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262721720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's because they still do things the old way. Rather than have one uniform way of doing things on the net where anyone can buy from anywhere or rent from anywhere they still want to make money buy getting people to buy the right to do something from them. I assume someone hasn't paid for the right to rent on the live marketplace. Once there's no money to be made from holding people ransom, they'll let them have the right to rent it on live.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because they still do things the old way .
Rather than have one uniform way of doing things on the net where anyone can buy from anywhere or rent from anywhere they still want to make money buy getting people to buy the right to do something from them .
I assume someone has n't paid for the right to rent on the live marketplace .
Once there 's no money to be made from holding people ransom , they 'll let them have the right to rent it on live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because they still do things the old way.
Rather than have one uniform way of doing things on the net where anyone can buy from anywhere or rent from anywhere they still want to make money buy getting people to buy the right to do something from them.
I assume someone hasn't paid for the right to rent on the live marketplace.
Once there's no money to be made from holding people ransom, they'll let them have the right to rent it on live.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658286</id>
	<title>Re:Again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262719620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, new freedoms. With the proposed system you don't need to rip it. You don't need to burn it before going to your friends house, you don't need to store it on your USB disc and carry that. You can stream it on many devices, regardless where you bought the movie. You could watch it on iPhone streaming in low-res and when you get home continue watching on your PS3 or PC. Then you can move to the bedroom and watch the ending. You can start watching the movie while the DVD is on the way from Amazon.</p><p>Surely this has been the promise of digital media for a long time. Let's give them a chance tp do it right this time. It's reasonable to have restrictions, but it looks like they want to create a system where at least you are not restricted by the one vendot that you chose to buy your digital media. They likely will have some system in place that restricts sharing, but the article even states that you could watch your media at your families or friends house, so that sounds about the right amount of freedom. Don't expect them to give you the freedom to ' share '  with the world though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , new freedoms .
With the proposed system you do n't need to rip it .
You do n't need to burn it before going to your friends house , you do n't need to store it on your USB disc and carry that .
You can stream it on many devices , regardless where you bought the movie .
You could watch it on iPhone streaming in low-res and when you get home continue watching on your PS3 or PC .
Then you can move to the bedroom and watch the ending .
You can start watching the movie while the DVD is on the way from Amazon.Surely this has been the promise of digital media for a long time .
Let 's give them a chance tp do it right this time .
It 's reasonable to have restrictions , but it looks like they want to create a system where at least you are not restricted by the one vendot that you chose to buy your digital media .
They likely will have some system in place that restricts sharing , but the article even states that you could watch your media at your families or friends house , so that sounds about the right amount of freedom .
Do n't expect them to give you the freedom to ' share ' with the world though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, new freedoms.
With the proposed system you don't need to rip it.
You don't need to burn it before going to your friends house, you don't need to store it on your USB disc and carry that.
You can stream it on many devices, regardless where you bought the movie.
You could watch it on iPhone streaming in low-res and when you get home continue watching on your PS3 or PC.
Then you can move to the bedroom and watch the ending.
You can start watching the movie while the DVD is on the way from Amazon.Surely this has been the promise of digital media for a long time.
Let's give them a chance tp do it right this time.
It's reasonable to have restrictions, but it looks like they want to create a system where at least you are not restricted by the one vendot that you chose to buy your digital media.
They likely will have some system in place that restricts sharing, but the article even states that you could watch your media at your families or friends house, so that sounds about the right amount of freedom.
Don't expect them to give you the freedom to ' share '  with the world though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655860</id>
	<title>Re:Again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262711340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently you don't remember when CDs cost 18.00 USD+...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently you do n't remember when CDs cost 18.00 USD + .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently you don't remember when CDs cost 18.00 USD+...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654672</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1262706420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>DRM only hurts the legitimate customers. The people pirating get around it. The content owners spend millions of dollars (if not more) to create better encryption that is cracked in months and is then obsolete to try and keep pirates from doing their thing (which never works) but the only thing they succeed in doing is pissing off their actual customers.



I was at home for christmas and wanted to watch a Blu-Ray movie on my laptop and output it to my parent's HDTV. Connected up an HDMI cable and PowerDVD 9 said it could only run on the primary display. I disabled the laptop display and tried again; now it said that the display connected was incompatible or some such nonsense (DRM non-compliant). If I had just pirated my movie, I wouldn't have had a problem.</p></div><p>Oddly enough(especially of the PowerDVD 9 software came pre-installed), isn't that the ENTIRE purpose of having a Blu-Ray player in a laptop that also has an HDMI output?  To watch movies on an external display?  Not that this is your fault of course, but it does bring to light a rather obvious issue, which will likely force me to ask others I know with similar hardware to test it.</p><p>I'm also curious if you used a client such as VLC media player instead of PowerDVD?  Just wondering if it's something within PowerDVD that's kicking off the DRM...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM only hurts the legitimate customers .
The people pirating get around it .
The content owners spend millions of dollars ( if not more ) to create better encryption that is cracked in months and is then obsolete to try and keep pirates from doing their thing ( which never works ) but the only thing they succeed in doing is pissing off their actual customers .
I was at home for christmas and wanted to watch a Blu-Ray movie on my laptop and output it to my parent 's HDTV .
Connected up an HDMI cable and PowerDVD 9 said it could only run on the primary display .
I disabled the laptop display and tried again ; now it said that the display connected was incompatible or some such nonsense ( DRM non-compliant ) .
If I had just pirated my movie , I would n't have had a problem.Oddly enough ( especially of the PowerDVD 9 software came pre-installed ) , is n't that the ENTIRE purpose of having a Blu-Ray player in a laptop that also has an HDMI output ?
To watch movies on an external display ?
Not that this is your fault of course , but it does bring to light a rather obvious issue , which will likely force me to ask others I know with similar hardware to test it.I 'm also curious if you used a client such as VLC media player instead of PowerDVD ?
Just wondering if it 's something within PowerDVD that 's kicking off the DRM.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM only hurts the legitimate customers.
The people pirating get around it.
The content owners spend millions of dollars (if not more) to create better encryption that is cracked in months and is then obsolete to try and keep pirates from doing their thing (which never works) but the only thing they succeed in doing is pissing off their actual customers.
I was at home for christmas and wanted to watch a Blu-Ray movie on my laptop and output it to my parent's HDTV.
Connected up an HDMI cable and PowerDVD 9 said it could only run on the primary display.
I disabled the laptop display and tried again; now it said that the display connected was incompatible or some such nonsense (DRM non-compliant).
If I had just pirated my movie, I wouldn't have had a problem.Oddly enough(especially of the PowerDVD 9 software came pre-installed), isn't that the ENTIRE purpose of having a Blu-Ray player in a laptop that also has an HDMI output?
To watch movies on an external display?
Not that this is your fault of course, but it does bring to light a rather obvious issue, which will likely force me to ask others I know with similar hardware to test it.I'm also curious if you used a client such as VLC media player instead of PowerDVD?
Just wondering if it's something within PowerDVD that's kicking off the DRM...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654164</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just stupid DRM, but stupid content controls in general.  An example.  I wanted to watch Inglorious Bastards so I checked the Xbox marketplace.  I see it's available, but wait it's only available to buy - in standard definition no less.  Why I can't I rent it?  There are tons of other movies to rent.  It can be rented at the video store or on netflix, but I can't rent it from the Xbox marketplace.  I am trying to pay to rent a movie, and the content providers instead of making it easy for me to do so push me to find it on the internet instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just stupid DRM , but stupid content controls in general .
An example .
I wanted to watch Inglorious Bastards so I checked the Xbox marketplace .
I see it 's available , but wait it 's only available to buy - in standard definition no less .
Why I ca n't I rent it ?
There are tons of other movies to rent .
It can be rented at the video store or on netflix , but I ca n't rent it from the Xbox marketplace .
I am trying to pay to rent a movie , and the content providers instead of making it easy for me to do so push me to find it on the internet instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just stupid DRM, but stupid content controls in general.
An example.
I wanted to watch Inglorious Bastards so I checked the Xbox marketplace.
I see it's available, but wait it's only available to buy - in standard definition no less.
Why I can't I rent it?
There are tons of other movies to rent.
It can be rented at the video store or on netflix, but I can't rent it from the Xbox marketplace.
I am trying to pay to rent a movie, and the content providers instead of making it easy for me to do so push me to find it on the internet instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096</id>
	<title>Pirating</title>
	<author>Randseed</author>
	<datestamp>1262703120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sonuds like a good reason why I would want to pirate things rather than buy them. Already the issues with the stupid software DRM that's prevalent all over the place encourage people to either pirate the software or find a crack so that they don't have to deal with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sonuds like a good reason why I would want to pirate things rather than buy them .
Already the issues with the stupid software DRM that 's prevalent all over the place encourage people to either pirate the software or find a crack so that they do n't have to deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sonuds like a good reason why I would want to pirate things rather than buy them.
Already the issues with the stupid software DRM that's prevalent all over the place encourage people to either pirate the software or find a crack so that they don't have to deal with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655336</id>
	<title>Re:Plays for Sure!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262709360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Consumers shouldn't have to know what's inside," he said. "They should just know it will play."</p></div><p>Even better. That&rsquo;s the core of the epic logic fail of DRM:</p><p>If customers don&rsquo;t know what&rsquo;s inside, then how will they even know that something is inside at all?<br>And that&rsquo;s the thing: The only DRM that will <em>ever</em> work, is the one where you can&rsquo;t use the content at all.</p><p>And guess what: The action of watching is the action of copying it to my brain. Which means it&rsquo;s impossible to watch it and adhere to your pseudo-laws (pseudo, because to be laws, people would have to actually follow them).</p><p>Can&rsquo;t we glue some funny facial property to one of them, stick a bomb up his ass, and put him on a plane? (Make sure it only takes himself out, so that he can still be identified. Also add a admission statement by the **AA cartel. Then let Obama declare war on the **AA. ^^<br><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-january-4-2010-michael-pollan" title="thedailyshow.com">Would make more sense than thinking about attacking all of Jemen, because some single idiot did some idiotic action.</a> [thedailyshow.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Consumers should n't have to know what 's inside , " he said .
" They should just know it will play .
" Even better .
That    s the core of the epic logic fail of DRM : If customers don    t know what    s inside , then how will they even know that something is inside at all ? And that    s the thing : The only DRM that will ever work , is the one where you can    t use the content at all.And guess what : The action of watching is the action of copying it to my brain .
Which means it    s impossible to watch it and adhere to your pseudo-laws ( pseudo , because to be laws , people would have to actually follow them ) .Can    t we glue some funny facial property to one of them , stick a bomb up his ass , and put him on a plane ?
( Make sure it only takes himself out , so that he can still be identified .
Also add a admission statement by the * * AA cartel .
Then let Obama declare war on the * * AA .
^ ^ Would make more sense than thinking about attacking all of Jemen , because some single idiot did some idiotic action .
[ thedailyshow.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Consumers shouldn't have to know what's inside," he said.
"They should just know it will play.
"Even better.
That’s the core of the epic logic fail of DRM:If customers don’t know what’s inside, then how will they even know that something is inside at all?And that’s the thing: The only DRM that will ever work, is the one where you can’t use the content at all.And guess what: The action of watching is the action of copying it to my brain.
Which means it’s impossible to watch it and adhere to your pseudo-laws (pseudo, because to be laws, people would have to actually follow them).Can’t we glue some funny facial property to one of them, stick a bomb up his ass, and put him on a plane?
(Make sure it only takes himself out, so that he can still be identified.
Also add a admission statement by the **AA cartel.
Then let Obama declare war on the **AA.
^^Would make more sense than thinking about attacking all of Jemen, because some single idiot did some idiotic action.
[thedailyshow.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654188</id>
	<title>Great!</title>
	<author>fearlezz</author>
	<datestamp>1262703780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A new challenge. Lets see if it stands for more than a week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A new challenge .
Lets see if it stands for more than a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A new challenge.
Lets see if it stands for more than a week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654174</id>
	<title>more like an end run around Apple</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1262703720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>while visiting the in-laws i actually thought about buying some cartoons on iTunes since they don't have a DVR and my son needed his Dora, Oso and Little Einsteins. This is more like an open encryption standard for online purchases than increasing DRM. of course Apple won't support it so anything you buy from itunes will only play on apple hardware/software. for everything else you will just buy a commodity box like a Roku and buy the content from anywhere on the internet and take it with you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while visiting the in-laws i actually thought about buying some cartoons on iTunes since they do n't have a DVR and my son needed his Dora , Oso and Little Einsteins .
This is more like an open encryption standard for online purchases than increasing DRM .
of course Apple wo n't support it so anything you buy from itunes will only play on apple hardware/software .
for everything else you will just buy a commodity box like a Roku and buy the content from anywhere on the internet and take it with you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while visiting the in-laws i actually thought about buying some cartoons on iTunes since they don't have a DVR and my son needed his Dora, Oso and Little Einsteins.
This is more like an open encryption standard for online purchases than increasing DRM.
of course Apple won't support it so anything you buy from itunes will only play on apple hardware/software.
for everything else you will just buy a commodity box like a Roku and buy the content from anywhere on the internet and take it with you</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30660324</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1262684940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I will also say "I don't care if they put these restrictions on", and add the caveat "because I won't buy the devices or the media".<br><br>I'm not even buying media now, no digital downloads of music, etc.  You can live without the media.  Game purchases way way down (older games were more fun anyway), a few pay-per-view movies now and then, or going to the theater when the friends all decide to go out, etc.  If you don't buy their crap you won't have to eat it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will also say " I do n't care if they put these restrictions on " , and add the caveat " because I wo n't buy the devices or the media " .I 'm not even buying media now , no digital downloads of music , etc .
You can live without the media .
Game purchases way way down ( older games were more fun anyway ) , a few pay-per-view movies now and then , or going to the theater when the friends all decide to go out , etc .
If you do n't buy their crap you wo n't have to eat it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will also say "I don't care if they put these restrictions on", and add the caveat "because I won't buy the devices or the media".I'm not even buying media now, no digital downloads of music, etc.
You can live without the media.
Game purchases way way down (older games were more fun anyway), a few pay-per-view movies now and then, or going to the theater when the friends all decide to go out, etc.
If you don't buy their crap you won't have to eat it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654420</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1262705160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steam is just as bad, because your content is only available through the "steam device", not "any device", and there is only one company that produces "steam devices".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steam is just as bad , because your content is only available through the " steam device " , not " any device " , and there is only one company that produces " steam devices " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steam is just as bad, because your content is only available through the "steam device", not "any device", and there is only one company that produces "steam devices".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656094</id>
	<title>What if ISP blocks access?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suppose they decide that this competes too much with pay-per-view or the competing solution of their sister company or holding company?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose they decide that this competes too much with pay-per-view or the competing solution of their sister company or holding company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose they decide that this competes too much with pay-per-view or the competing solution of their sister company or holding company?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654198</id>
	<title>This is ALMOST good.</title>
	<author>muyshiny</author>
	<datestamp>1262703780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I ever wanted was to buy the LICENCE to the content which is what I'm really paying for and nevermind about how I get a copy.  I want to sign up somewhere that I have a lifetime personal use licence to say, The Matrix.  Maybe I get a free download of the DVD quality file.  Maybe I need to pay $1 or so on top of the licence if I want to download a full BluRay of it to offset costs, etc.

Why is this so hard of an argument for them?  OH RIGHT.  They don't want to sell me licences because then they can't sell me the same content over and over, I'd only licence it once.

Rather than give this up and adopt something rational, they instead insist on pursuing these crazy schemes and wasting gobs of money and everyone's time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I ever wanted was to buy the LICENCE to the content which is what I 'm really paying for and nevermind about how I get a copy .
I want to sign up somewhere that I have a lifetime personal use licence to say , The Matrix .
Maybe I get a free download of the DVD quality file .
Maybe I need to pay $ 1 or so on top of the licence if I want to download a full BluRay of it to offset costs , etc .
Why is this so hard of an argument for them ?
OH RIGHT .
They do n't want to sell me licences because then they ca n't sell me the same content over and over , I 'd only licence it once .
Rather than give this up and adopt something rational , they instead insist on pursuing these crazy schemes and wasting gobs of money and everyone 's time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I ever wanted was to buy the LICENCE to the content which is what I'm really paying for and nevermind about how I get a copy.
I want to sign up somewhere that I have a lifetime personal use licence to say, The Matrix.
Maybe I get a free download of the DVD quality file.
Maybe I need to pay $1 or so on top of the licence if I want to download a full BluRay of it to offset costs, etc.
Why is this so hard of an argument for them?
OH RIGHT.
They don't want to sell me licences because then they can't sell me the same content over and over, I'd only licence it once.
Rather than give this up and adopt something rational, they instead insist on pursuing these crazy schemes and wasting gobs of money and everyone's time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654250</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>Moryath</author>
	<datestamp>1262704080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amount of software I have a "cracked" version of running on my PC coincides in a scary manner (&gt;85\%) with the amount of software I have discs for sitting on my shelf.</p><p>The remainder I have either (a) lost the disc for or (b) had the floppy go bad.</p><p>Why so many of them cracked? In the case of games, so I don't have to get out the disc and use the DVD drive as a fucking 5 1/4" dongle just to play all the content that's been loaded to my hard drive anyways. In the case of the software, so I can disable the neverending stream of "UPDATE ME UPDATE ME UPDATE ME" crap and just use the software for what I need it for.</p><p>And don't tell me it really constantly needs to check for updates. It's phoning home just to fucking phone home.</p><p>They turn around and do this with "digital media" files, I don't bother with them any more. "Rights locker" my ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of software I have a " cracked " version of running on my PC coincides in a scary manner ( &gt; 85 \ % ) with the amount of software I have discs for sitting on my shelf.The remainder I have either ( a ) lost the disc for or ( b ) had the floppy go bad.Why so many of them cracked ?
In the case of games , so I do n't have to get out the disc and use the DVD drive as a fucking 5 1/4 " dongle just to play all the content that 's been loaded to my hard drive anyways .
In the case of the software , so I can disable the neverending stream of " UPDATE ME UPDATE ME UPDATE ME " crap and just use the software for what I need it for.And do n't tell me it really constantly needs to check for updates .
It 's phoning home just to fucking phone home.They turn around and do this with " digital media " files , I do n't bother with them any more .
" Rights locker " my ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of software I have a "cracked" version of running on my PC coincides in a scary manner (&gt;85\%) with the amount of software I have discs for sitting on my shelf.The remainder I have either (a) lost the disc for or (b) had the floppy go bad.Why so many of them cracked?
In the case of games, so I don't have to get out the disc and use the DVD drive as a fucking 5 1/4" dongle just to play all the content that's been loaded to my hard drive anyways.
In the case of the software, so I can disable the neverending stream of "UPDATE ME UPDATE ME UPDATE ME" crap and just use the software for what I need it for.And don't tell me it really constantly needs to check for updates.
It's phoning home just to fucking phone home.They turn around and do this with "digital media" files, I don't bother with them any more.
"Rights locker" my ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654218</id>
	<title>Apple won't go for it = FAIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>apple will never support this for i-tunes, as it would mean no one has to buy there overpriced crap anymore. so there goes the largest market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>apple will never support this for i-tunes , as it would mean no one has to buy there overpriced crap anymore .
so there goes the largest market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>apple will never support this for i-tunes, as it would mean no one has to buy there overpriced crap anymore.
so there goes the largest market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658754</id>
	<title>Re:The Hangover</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262721420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And there's the funny thing about it all - it becomes LESS of a hassle and you get BETTER access to your material if you use a VHS cassette player than if you buy a DVD. Fucking bark-raving insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And there 's the funny thing about it all - it becomes LESS of a hassle and you get BETTER access to your material if you use a VHS cassette player than if you buy a DVD .
Fucking bark-raving insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there's the funny thing about it all - it becomes LESS of a hassle and you get BETTER access to your material if you use a VHS cassette player than if you buy a DVD.
Fucking bark-raving insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654792</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1262706900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're the one who sold out to Microsoft and bought an Xbox to begin with.</p></div><p>Which platform for in-person multiplayer video gaming <em>doesn't</em> involve selling out?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're the one who sold out to Microsoft and bought an Xbox to begin with.Which platform for in-person multiplayer video gaming does n't involve selling out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're the one who sold out to Microsoft and bought an Xbox to begin with.Which platform for in-person multiplayer video gaming doesn't involve selling out?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658902</id>
	<title>Re:The Hangover</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1262722200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DVD authors have always had the ability to set User Ops that denied this.  Some players ignored these settings.  I guess you played it on the wrong player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DVD authors have always had the ability to set User Ops that denied this .
Some players ignored these settings .
I guess you played it on the wrong player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DVD authors have always had the ability to set User Ops that denied this.
Some players ignored these settings.
I guess you played it on the wrong player.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655042</id>
	<title>You're paying for the content , not the format</title>
	<author>Viol8</author>
	<datestamp>1262708040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Once it's digital the costs to the manufacturer drop and profit soars yet the consumer doesn't see any of that. We're still paying $10 bucks for a CD (sans the CD) how many years later?"</p><p>So? Its whats on the CD you're paying for and always has been. The CD itself is worth pennies. Its pretty naive to think that just because the format changes there'll be a serious shift in the price.</p><p>"The whole economics of today seems like it's paying only for exorbitant CEO profits and studio whoring."</p><p>It may well be overpriced , but at the end of the day media isn't one of lifes necessities. If you don't like the price don't buy the goods. If everyone did that then they'd soon get the message. They only get away with charging high prices because theres enough people willing to pay them. Thats what capitalism is all about isn't it? Supply and demand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Once it 's digital the costs to the manufacturer drop and profit soars yet the consumer does n't see any of that .
We 're still paying $ 10 bucks for a CD ( sans the CD ) how many years later ? " So ?
Its whats on the CD you 're paying for and always has been .
The CD itself is worth pennies .
Its pretty naive to think that just because the format changes there 'll be a serious shift in the price .
" The whole economics of today seems like it 's paying only for exorbitant CEO profits and studio whoring .
" It may well be overpriced , but at the end of the day media is n't one of lifes necessities .
If you do n't like the price do n't buy the goods .
If everyone did that then they 'd soon get the message .
They only get away with charging high prices because theres enough people willing to pay them .
Thats what capitalism is all about is n't it ?
Supply and demand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Once it's digital the costs to the manufacturer drop and profit soars yet the consumer doesn't see any of that.
We're still paying $10 bucks for a CD (sans the CD) how many years later?"So?
Its whats on the CD you're paying for and always has been.
The CD itself is worth pennies.
Its pretty naive to think that just because the format changes there'll be a serious shift in the price.
"The whole economics of today seems like it's paying only for exorbitant CEO profits and studio whoring.
"It may well be overpriced , but at the end of the day media isn't one of lifes necessities.
If you don't like the price don't buy the goods.
If everyone did that then they'd soon get the message.
They only get away with charging high prices because theres enough people willing to pay them.
Thats what capitalism is all about isn't it?
Supply and demand?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360</id>
	<title>Re:Again?</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1262704740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found this part particular amusing:</p><p>"But the effort still has a long way to go before it can claim anything like success. The proof will be whether it revives home entertainment sales by getting consumers excited about the new freedoms of the digital world."</p><p>Really? New Freedoms? What crack are these people smoking? How delusional have they become? People rip these things of the disks because of the stranglehold these studios are attempting to put there. Once ripped, they can play them when and wherever they way. They already overcharge for content. Once it's digital the costs to the manufacturer drop and profit soars yet the consumer doesn't see any of that. We're still paying $10 bucks for a CD (sans the CD) how many years later?</p><p>People see the 'value' of an Audio CD or a movie and they know they are overpriced. The digital forms of that just enforce that opinion.</p><p>The whole economics of today seems like it's paying only for exorbitant CEO profits and studio whoring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found this part particular amusing : " But the effort still has a long way to go before it can claim anything like success .
The proof will be whether it revives home entertainment sales by getting consumers excited about the new freedoms of the digital world. " Really ?
New Freedoms ?
What crack are these people smoking ?
How delusional have they become ?
People rip these things of the disks because of the stranglehold these studios are attempting to put there .
Once ripped , they can play them when and wherever they way .
They already overcharge for content .
Once it 's digital the costs to the manufacturer drop and profit soars yet the consumer does n't see any of that .
We 're still paying $ 10 bucks for a CD ( sans the CD ) how many years later ? People see the 'value ' of an Audio CD or a movie and they know they are overpriced .
The digital forms of that just enforce that opinion.The whole economics of today seems like it 's paying only for exorbitant CEO profits and studio whoring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found this part particular amusing:"But the effort still has a long way to go before it can claim anything like success.
The proof will be whether it revives home entertainment sales by getting consumers excited about the new freedoms of the digital world."Really?
New Freedoms?
What crack are these people smoking?
How delusional have they become?
People rip these things of the disks because of the stranglehold these studios are attempting to put there.
Once ripped, they can play them when and wherever they way.
They already overcharge for content.
Once it's digital the costs to the manufacturer drop and profit soars yet the consumer doesn't see any of that.
We're still paying $10 bucks for a CD (sans the CD) how many years later?People see the 'value' of an Audio CD or a movie and they know they are overpriced.
The digital forms of that just enforce that opinion.The whole economics of today seems like it's paying only for exorbitant CEO profits and studio whoring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656766</id>
	<title>DIVX Part II</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone remember Circuit City pushing DIVX players back in the 90s?
All the same smell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone remember Circuit City pushing DIVX players back in the 90s ?
All the same smell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone remember Circuit City pushing DIVX players back in the 90s?
All the same smell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654632</id>
	<title>The Listener's License</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1262706240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From Sean Kennedy's <i>Tales From The Afternow</i> ( <a href="http://rantmedia.ca/afternow/" title="rantmedia.ca">http://rantmedia.ca/afternow/</a> [rantmedia.ca] ) <br>
(from transcript <a href="http://thinkforyourself.vaillife.net/assets/afternow/01tota.streamjack.doc" title="vaillife.net">http://thinkforyourself.vaillife.net/assets/afternow/01tota.streamjack.doc</a> [vaillife.net] ) - <br> <br>
It was a few years later when the REAL crackdown came. The Listener&rsquo;s License. What a fantastic concept. I can&rsquo;t believe it. See it happened like this. There was this - There is all this piracy, see everybody was - Piracy was - Uh, Piracy is now what they now consider a theft. See in order to combat piracy which was getting really rampant, all this information was flowing around nobody really liked that so they wanted it gone. And they wanted to get rid of piracy.  But they couldn&rsquo;t stop it.<p>

The Internet was growing everyday. No one could stem the flow so they created the Listener&rsquo;s License. Started real easy. See music, legitimate music to purchase, was, you know, say 20 bucks. And then what they did was, if you signed up to get this card, you know like a loyalty program card of the day. You&rsquo;d get 75\% percent off. So a 20 dollar CD became a 5 dollar CD. And you could buy it legitimately. For 20 bucks you would walk out of there with 4 CD&rsquo;s. Amazing.
</p><p>

Of course people were signing up for it in droves, I mean why wouldn&rsquo;t ya? You could go buy a pirate CD for 6 bucks or you could buy the reall thing for 5. Consumers are such mercenaries. So they signed up en masse.
</p><p>

2 years went by, 2 years. Then it became mandatory. See if you didn&rsquo;t have your listener&rsquo;s license, if you couldn&rsquo;t present your card, well you weren&rsquo;t able to buy music. Part of the licensing agreement came when you got the card. And all of sudden people were out in the cold.
</p><p>

But it wasn&rsquo;t just the music you know. The Listener&rsquo;s License was created by the conglomerates. They all got together. If you wanted to see a movie, hey if you had your listener&rsquo;s License you could get in for 2 dollars. (chuckle) 2 bucks. Oh you don&rsquo;t have a Listener&rsquo;s License, well you can&rsquo;t get in. See they couldn&rsquo;t control the piracy so they stopped it at its source.
</p><p>

If ever you were found to be a pirate or if your computer was ever found to have MP3&rsquo;s that weren&rsquo;t appropriate on it you were eliminated, your listener&rsquo;s License was revoked and you were out of the loop. It's all private enterprise, you don&rsquo;t have a right to music, you never had a right to it.  It's all private.
</p><p>

No more movies no more shows.  Can&rsquo;t even buy art. Cause you can scan it.  What if you scanned that picture? So, regulation of course is always the first step to total domination. But we didn&rsquo;t see that either. We weren&rsquo;t ready for the horror.
</p><p>

At that time the Listener&rsquo;s License had huge power. Not the power it has today, I mean now. If you do not have a valid Listener&rsquo;s License.  I mean - well in our time you can&rsquo;t do anything, I mean, you&rsquo;re a pirate. If you can&rsquo;t present, that is part of your paperwork. It&rsquo;s part of your identification. See the listener&rsquo;s License, after they came out with that.  That was a huge step one.
</p><p>

But everyone was so focused on the Listener&rsquo;s License they didn&rsquo;t see where the REAL power play was made. See everyone was so whipped up, and the media again, you know the corporately controlled media. Got everyone focusing on the benefits and the drawbacks, a big debate over the listener&rsquo;s license. But then what they didn&rsquo;t see was, was the regulations that went into play on the recording equipment. See that was the one that really came back. They started putting these standards on microphones and any kind of recording media. You wanted to record, well you gotta adhere to this standard. Because this is the future.  Got to make sure the quality is there.
</p><p>

Chips were put into place. All re</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Sean Kennedy 's Tales From The Afternow ( http : //rantmedia.ca/afternow/ [ rantmedia.ca ] ) ( from transcript http : //thinkforyourself.vaillife.net/assets/afternow/01tota.streamjack.doc [ vaillife.net ] ) - It was a few years later when the REAL crackdown came .
The Listener    s License .
What a fantastic concept .
I can    t believe it .
See it happened like this .
There was this - There is all this piracy , see everybody was - Piracy was - Uh , Piracy is now what they now consider a theft .
See in order to combat piracy which was getting really rampant , all this information was flowing around nobody really liked that so they wanted it gone .
And they wanted to get rid of piracy .
But they couldn    t stop it .
The Internet was growing everyday .
No one could stem the flow so they created the Listener    s License .
Started real easy .
See music , legitimate music to purchase , was , you know , say 20 bucks .
And then what they did was , if you signed up to get this card , you know like a loyalty program card of the day .
You    d get 75 \ % percent off .
So a 20 dollar CD became a 5 dollar CD .
And you could buy it legitimately .
For 20 bucks you would walk out of there with 4 CD    s .
Amazing . Of course people were signing up for it in droves , I mean why wouldn    t ya ?
You could go buy a pirate CD for 6 bucks or you could buy the reall thing for 5 .
Consumers are such mercenaries .
So they signed up en masse .
2 years went by , 2 years .
Then it became mandatory .
See if you didn    t have your listener    s license , if you couldn    t present your card , well you weren    t able to buy music .
Part of the licensing agreement came when you got the card .
And all of sudden people were out in the cold .
But it wasn    t just the music you know .
The Listener    s License was created by the conglomerates .
They all got together .
If you wanted to see a movie , hey if you had your listener    s License you could get in for 2 dollars .
( chuckle ) 2 bucks .
Oh you don    t have a Listener    s License , well you can    t get in .
See they couldn    t control the piracy so they stopped it at its source .
If ever you were found to be a pirate or if your computer was ever found to have MP3    s that weren    t appropriate on it you were eliminated , your listener    s License was revoked and you were out of the loop .
It 's all private enterprise , you don    t have a right to music , you never had a right to it .
It 's all private .
No more movies no more shows .
Can    t even buy art .
Cause you can scan it .
What if you scanned that picture ?
So , regulation of course is always the first step to total domination .
But we didn    t see that either .
We weren    t ready for the horror .
At that time the Listener    s License had huge power .
Not the power it has today , I mean now .
If you do not have a valid Listener    s License .
I mean - well in our time you can    t do anything , I mean , you    re a pirate .
If you can    t present , that is part of your paperwork .
It    s part of your identification .
See the listener    s License , after they came out with that .
That was a huge step one .
But everyone was so focused on the Listener    s License they didn    t see where the REAL power play was made .
See everyone was so whipped up , and the media again , you know the corporately controlled media .
Got everyone focusing on the benefits and the drawbacks , a big debate over the listener    s license .
But then what they didn    t see was , was the regulations that went into play on the recording equipment .
See that was the one that really came back .
They started putting these standards on microphones and any kind of recording media .
You wanted to record , well you got ta adhere to this standard .
Because this is the future .
Got to make sure the quality is there .
Chips were put into place .
All re</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Sean Kennedy's Tales From The Afternow ( http://rantmedia.ca/afternow/ [rantmedia.ca] ) 
(from transcript http://thinkforyourself.vaillife.net/assets/afternow/01tota.streamjack.doc [vaillife.net] ) -  
It was a few years later when the REAL crackdown came.
The Listener’s License.
What a fantastic concept.
I can’t believe it.
See it happened like this.
There was this - There is all this piracy, see everybody was - Piracy was - Uh, Piracy is now what they now consider a theft.
See in order to combat piracy which was getting really rampant, all this information was flowing around nobody really liked that so they wanted it gone.
And they wanted to get rid of piracy.
But they couldn’t stop it.
The Internet was growing everyday.
No one could stem the flow so they created the Listener’s License.
Started real easy.
See music, legitimate music to purchase, was, you know, say 20 bucks.
And then what they did was, if you signed up to get this card, you know like a loyalty program card of the day.
You’d get 75\% percent off.
So a 20 dollar CD became a 5 dollar CD.
And you could buy it legitimately.
For 20 bucks you would walk out of there with 4 CD’s.
Amazing.


Of course people were signing up for it in droves, I mean why wouldn’t ya?
You could go buy a pirate CD for 6 bucks or you could buy the reall thing for 5.
Consumers are such mercenaries.
So they signed up en masse.
2 years went by, 2 years.
Then it became mandatory.
See if you didn’t have your listener’s license, if you couldn’t present your card, well you weren’t able to buy music.
Part of the licensing agreement came when you got the card.
And all of sudden people were out in the cold.
But it wasn’t just the music you know.
The Listener’s License was created by the conglomerates.
They all got together.
If you wanted to see a movie, hey if you had your listener’s License you could get in for 2 dollars.
(chuckle) 2 bucks.
Oh you don’t have a Listener’s License, well you can’t get in.
See they couldn’t control the piracy so they stopped it at its source.
If ever you were found to be a pirate or if your computer was ever found to have MP3’s that weren’t appropriate on it you were eliminated, your listener’s License was revoked and you were out of the loop.
It's all private enterprise, you don’t have a right to music, you never had a right to it.
It's all private.
No more movies no more shows.
Can’t even buy art.
Cause you can scan it.
What if you scanned that picture?
So, regulation of course is always the first step to total domination.
But we didn’t see that either.
We weren’t ready for the horror.
At that time the Listener’s License had huge power.
Not the power it has today, I mean now.
If you do not have a valid Listener’s License.
I mean - well in our time you can’t do anything, I mean, you’re a pirate.
If you can’t present, that is part of your paperwork.
It’s part of your identification.
See the listener’s License, after they came out with that.
That was a huge step one.
But everyone was so focused on the Listener’s License they didn’t see where the REAL power play was made.
See everyone was so whipped up, and the media again, you know the corporately controlled media.
Got everyone focusing on the benefits and the drawbacks, a big debate over the listener’s license.
But then what they didn’t see was, was the regulations that went into play on the recording equipment.
See that was the one that really came back.
They started putting these standards on microphones and any kind of recording media.
You wanted to record, well you gotta adhere to this standard.
Because this is the future.
Got to make sure the quality is there.
Chips were put into place.
All re</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657136</id>
	<title>They should try something that would work instead.</title>
	<author>Cannucklehead</author>
	<datestamp>1262715660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The content owners are sadly stuck in the mindset of trying to roll the calendar back to the day when no one could rip dvd's (and before that cds) due to technical limitations. Stupid and greedy.</p><p>If they were *smart* and greedy they would realize that what the customer wants is access to the whole catalog - on demand. And cheaply.</p><p>How to do this? Well setting up a server farm to stream the data would be a good start - but how to convince people to stream content from their servers instead of using p2p to access illegal sources?</p><p>Easy. Make it cheaper/easier to stream the content from a legal source rather than from an illegal source by working out a deal with ISP's so that data streamed from the legal servers costs less per Gb than 'normal' internet access. Cut the ISP's in for a peice of the action and they will help *encourage* streaming from legal sources.</p><p>As a side effect, currently existing pirated content sitting on the net becomes cost *un* effective.<br>Then only a moron would pirate a movie via p2p for more than the cost of streaming from the legal sources.<br>Remember most people only watch a movie/show once so the benefit of downloading for multiple views is not worth the extra cost .</p><p>Bingo - piracy obsoleted, content owners and ISP's a have a new market that easy to manage and exploit, old content becomes valuable again and the customer gets what they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The content owners are sadly stuck in the mindset of trying to roll the calendar back to the day when no one could rip dvd 's ( and before that cds ) due to technical limitations .
Stupid and greedy.If they were * smart * and greedy they would realize that what the customer wants is access to the whole catalog - on demand .
And cheaply.How to do this ?
Well setting up a server farm to stream the data would be a good start - but how to convince people to stream content from their servers instead of using p2p to access illegal sources ? Easy .
Make it cheaper/easier to stream the content from a legal source rather than from an illegal source by working out a deal with ISP 's so that data streamed from the legal servers costs less per Gb than 'normal ' internet access .
Cut the ISP 's in for a peice of the action and they will help * encourage * streaming from legal sources.As a side effect , currently existing pirated content sitting on the net becomes cost * un * effective.Then only a moron would pirate a movie via p2p for more than the cost of streaming from the legal sources.Remember most people only watch a movie/show once so the benefit of downloading for multiple views is not worth the extra cost .Bingo - piracy obsoleted , content owners and ISP 's a have a new market that easy to manage and exploit , old content becomes valuable again and the customer gets what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The content owners are sadly stuck in the mindset of trying to roll the calendar back to the day when no one could rip dvd's (and before that cds) due to technical limitations.
Stupid and greedy.If they were *smart* and greedy they would realize that what the customer wants is access to the whole catalog - on demand.
And cheaply.How to do this?
Well setting up a server farm to stream the data would be a good start - but how to convince people to stream content from their servers instead of using p2p to access illegal sources?Easy.
Make it cheaper/easier to stream the content from a legal source rather than from an illegal source by working out a deal with ISP's so that data streamed from the legal servers costs less per Gb than 'normal' internet access.
Cut the ISP's in for a peice of the action and they will help *encourage* streaming from legal sources.As a side effect, currently existing pirated content sitting on the net becomes cost *un* effective.Then only a moron would pirate a movie via p2p for more than the cost of streaming from the legal sources.Remember most people only watch a movie/show once so the benefit of downloading for multiple views is not worth the extra cost .Bingo - piracy obsoleted, content owners and ISP's a have a new market that easy to manage and exploit, old content becomes valuable again and the customer gets what they want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655538</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262710140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's funny, because Oblivion by Bethesda Softworks (that's the one you are talking about right?) comes with ABSOLUTELY NO copy protection. Yet it still sold millions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's funny , because Oblivion by Bethesda Softworks ( that 's the one you are talking about right ?
) comes with ABSOLUTELY NO copy protection .
Yet it still sold millions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's funny, because Oblivion by Bethesda Softworks (that's the one you are talking about right?
) comes with ABSOLUTELY NO copy protection.
Yet it still sold millions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654476</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>Zontar\_Thing\_From\_Ve</author>
	<datestamp>1262705460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now in order to get lynched I'm going to start with a statement</p><p> <i>I don't care if they put these restrictions on</i> </p><p>But I'll add a caveat...</p><p> <i>As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single payment</i> </p></div><p>I'm sure a lot of people agree with you, but here's the problem.  Hollywood to date releases these "digital copies" with DVD purchases so you can play it on your PC, phone, whatever.  The dirty little secret is that the digital copies all expire within a few months.  So this whole idea requires you to have faith that a group of people who have yet to do the right thing will suddenly do the right thing.  I don't see it.  My guess is that they will indeed come up with a workable way for the movies to work on multiple devices, but they will still expire because Hollywood really and truly <br>
JUST DOES NOT GET IT <br>
and I don't think they ever will.  Remember, consumers are now and always have been the enemy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now in order to get lynched I 'm going to start with a statement I do n't care if they put these restrictions on But I 'll add a caveat... As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single payment I 'm sure a lot of people agree with you , but here 's the problem .
Hollywood to date releases these " digital copies " with DVD purchases so you can play it on your PC , phone , whatever .
The dirty little secret is that the digital copies all expire within a few months .
So this whole idea requires you to have faith that a group of people who have yet to do the right thing will suddenly do the right thing .
I do n't see it .
My guess is that they will indeed come up with a workable way for the movies to work on multiple devices , but they will still expire because Hollywood really and truly JUST DOES NOT GET IT and I do n't think they ever will .
Remember , consumers are now and always have been the enemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now in order to get lynched I'm going to start with a statement I don't care if they put these restrictions on But I'll add a caveat... As long as I can play it on any device that I own with only a single payment I'm sure a lot of people agree with you, but here's the problem.
Hollywood to date releases these "digital copies" with DVD purchases so you can play it on your PC, phone, whatever.
The dirty little secret is that the digital copies all expire within a few months.
So this whole idea requires you to have faith that a group of people who have yet to do the right thing will suddenly do the right thing.
I don't see it.
My guess is that they will indeed come up with a workable way for the movies to work on multiple devices, but they will still expire because Hollywood really and truly 
JUST DOES NOT GET IT 
and I don't think they ever will.
Remember, consumers are now and always have been the enemy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658424</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1262720340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My ideal these days would be to just buy a license</p></div><p>But why even bother with "owning" a license? TFA makes a good point when it observes that where the market is <i>really</i> heading is in the direction of streaming video on-demand. It may take some more time to finally get there, particularly for necessary infrastructure build out, but really what we are talking about here is <b> <i>price</i> </b> and <b> <i>convenience</i> </b>. Suppose for example that it costs you $0.99 (or even less with ads for example) for each view of a movie; if it is available in HD streamed to the device of your choice are you really going to care whether or not you "own a license" to watch the content an unlimited number of times? How many times are you going to watch a particular film or tv show episode anyway? IMHO, schemes like DECE and Disney's competing Keychest are really not relevant in the end (and their window of relevance may be closing faster than they think). By the time bandwidth and devices are ready for high-quality on-demand streaming is anyone going to care whether or not a particular piece of content is "theirs"? People will pay for subscriptions (as we are already seeing with Netflix) or on-demand pay-per-view <i> <b>if the price is right</b> </i>. Once the content is digital and stored off site and the prices are low enough, nobody is going to bother with "owning" licenses or even copying the streams; it will be too cheap for most people to care. This will also be right about the time that the "cable model" of scheduled and programmed "one-size-fits-all" content delivered over channels will become completely obsolete; it will no longer have any meaning in an on-demand world with individual intelligent streaming on 100Gb+ home broadband connections.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My ideal these days would be to just buy a licenseBut why even bother with " owning " a license ?
TFA makes a good point when it observes that where the market is really heading is in the direction of streaming video on-demand .
It may take some more time to finally get there , particularly for necessary infrastructure build out , but really what we are talking about here is price and convenience .
Suppose for example that it costs you $ 0.99 ( or even less with ads for example ) for each view of a movie ; if it is available in HD streamed to the device of your choice are you really going to care whether or not you " own a license " to watch the content an unlimited number of times ?
How many times are you going to watch a particular film or tv show episode anyway ?
IMHO , schemes like DECE and Disney 's competing Keychest are really not relevant in the end ( and their window of relevance may be closing faster than they think ) .
By the time bandwidth and devices are ready for high-quality on-demand streaming is anyone going to care whether or not a particular piece of content is " theirs " ?
People will pay for subscriptions ( as we are already seeing with Netflix ) or on-demand pay-per-view if the price is right .
Once the content is digital and stored off site and the prices are low enough , nobody is going to bother with " owning " licenses or even copying the streams ; it will be too cheap for most people to care .
This will also be right about the time that the " cable model " of scheduled and programmed " one-size-fits-all " content delivered over channels will become completely obsolete ; it will no longer have any meaning in an on-demand world with individual intelligent streaming on 100Gb + home broadband connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ideal these days would be to just buy a licenseBut why even bother with "owning" a license?
TFA makes a good point when it observes that where the market is really heading is in the direction of streaming video on-demand.
It may take some more time to finally get there, particularly for necessary infrastructure build out, but really what we are talking about here is  price  and  convenience .
Suppose for example that it costs you $0.99 (or even less with ads for example) for each view of a movie; if it is available in HD streamed to the device of your choice are you really going to care whether or not you "own a license" to watch the content an unlimited number of times?
How many times are you going to watch a particular film or tv show episode anyway?
IMHO, schemes like DECE and Disney's competing Keychest are really not relevant in the end (and their window of relevance may be closing faster than they think).
By the time bandwidth and devices are ready for high-quality on-demand streaming is anyone going to care whether or not a particular piece of content is "theirs"?
People will pay for subscriptions (as we are already seeing with Netflix) or on-demand pay-per-view  if the price is right .
Once the content is digital and stored off site and the prices are low enough, nobody is going to bother with "owning" licenses or even copying the streams; it will be too cheap for most people to care.
This will also be right about the time that the "cable model" of scheduled and programmed "one-size-fits-all" content delivered over channels will become completely obsolete; it will no longer have any meaning in an on-demand world with individual intelligent streaming on 100Gb+ home broadband connections.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654668</id>
	<title>Re:This is ALMOST good.</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1262706420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They don't want to sell me licences because then they can't sell me the same content over and over</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
They can only sell you the same content over and over if you agree to buy the same content over and over.  They're not forcing you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't want to sell me licences because then they ca n't sell me the same content over and over They can only sell you the same content over and over if you agree to buy the same content over and over .
They 're not forcing you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't want to sell me licences because then they can't sell me the same content over and over

They can only sell you the same content over and over if you agree to buy the same content over and over.
They're not forcing you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262705040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's always been easier to not follow rules than it is to follow them.</p><p>It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)<br>It's easier to not follow the street lights (you get there faster, if at all)<br>It's easier not to care about others (less worries)</p><p>Not that I like DRM, but the argument doesn't hold water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always been easier to not follow rules than it is to follow them.It 's easier to not pay taxes ( less forms to fill in ) It 's easier to not follow the street lights ( you get there faster , if at all ) It 's easier not to care about others ( less worries ) Not that I like DRM , but the argument does n't hold water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always been easier to not follow rules than it is to follow them.It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)It's easier to not follow the street lights (you get there faster, if at all)It's easier not to care about others (less worries)Not that I like DRM, but the argument doesn't hold water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655784</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262711040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware?</p></div><p>"Hancock 2" will only be available in this new platform.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware ?
" Hancock 2 " will only be available in this new platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what incentive do consumers have to buy this new hardware?
"Hancock 2" will only be available in this new platform.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088</id>
	<title>Again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Online music distribution is picking up now that DRM is fading away, and the movie industry wants to up the encryption? Seriously?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Online music distribution is picking up now that DRM is fading away , and the movie industry wants to up the encryption ?
Seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Online music distribution is picking up now that DRM is fading away, and the movie industry wants to up the encryption?
Seriously?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655712</id>
	<title>"any company" == nobody significant</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1262710800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The group is announcing that it has adopted a new file format that, like the DVD, will allow any company to create a compatible device</p></div></blockquote><p>Does "any company" include Debian? Does it include the mplayer and mythtv teams?  Can I look up the spec and implement it myself, without signing any contracts?  If not, then these guys are a joke as far as "standards" are concerned.</p><p>That is why there never has been, and never will be, any DRM standard.  If it's a standard, then people can create or maintain their implementations.  If people can maintain their implementations, then restrictions can't be enforced through "technical measures."  You can't have technical enforcement (i.e. deliberate bugs) <em>and</em> maintainability at the same time.  That's an oxymoron.</p><p>The CD, not the DVD, is the past that you should draw your inspiration from.  Although I'd say that instead of looking to the past, you should look at the current market, where the unDRMed <em>file</em> (forget the media itself; think stream of bytes) is the minimum baseline standard.</p><blockquote><div><p>Hollywood needs consumers to buy more digital content</p></div></blockquote><p>Hollywood, you keep saying that, but the working playback products are already on the market and widely deployed right now, without you having to try to create another fake standard or talk any tech companies into joining anything.  There are millions of customers waiting for a product from <em>you</em>, Hollywood, not waiting for a product from Taiwan.  We already have our kickass Taiwan stuff and we love it.</p><p>The pirates offer movie2009.720p.x264.avi and it plays perfectly.  The current defacto standards that the market has already settled on, have everything that customers want.  Where's <em>your</em> file?  Sell me a file that mplayer/xine/mythtv (without any weird patches from you) can play.  If you don't have one for sale, then you can't even claim the pirates are impacting your market, because you're not <em>in</em> the market yet. Statements that you want to increase sales, are a joke that nobody can take seriously, and only make you look either stupid or dishonest.</p><p>It's time to open for business.  The customers aren't asking for DRM; they're asking for the files and you're telling them and their money to fuck off. How much longer can the agenda of revenue avoidance last, before the stockholders figure it out and fire/sue you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The group is announcing that it has adopted a new file format that , like the DVD , will allow any company to create a compatible deviceDoes " any company " include Debian ?
Does it include the mplayer and mythtv teams ?
Can I look up the spec and implement it myself , without signing any contracts ?
If not , then these guys are a joke as far as " standards " are concerned.That is why there never has been , and never will be , any DRM standard .
If it 's a standard , then people can create or maintain their implementations .
If people can maintain their implementations , then restrictions ca n't be enforced through " technical measures .
" You ca n't have technical enforcement ( i.e .
deliberate bugs ) and maintainability at the same time .
That 's an oxymoron.The CD , not the DVD , is the past that you should draw your inspiration from .
Although I 'd say that instead of looking to the past , you should look at the current market , where the unDRMed file ( forget the media itself ; think stream of bytes ) is the minimum baseline standard.Hollywood needs consumers to buy more digital contentHollywood , you keep saying that , but the working playback products are already on the market and widely deployed right now , without you having to try to create another fake standard or talk any tech companies into joining anything .
There are millions of customers waiting for a product from you , Hollywood , not waiting for a product from Taiwan .
We already have our kickass Taiwan stuff and we love it.The pirates offer movie2009.720p.x264.avi and it plays perfectly .
The current defacto standards that the market has already settled on , have everything that customers want .
Where 's your file ?
Sell me a file that mplayer/xine/mythtv ( without any weird patches from you ) can play .
If you do n't have one for sale , then you ca n't even claim the pirates are impacting your market , because you 're not in the market yet .
Statements that you want to increase sales , are a joke that nobody can take seriously , and only make you look either stupid or dishonest.It 's time to open for business .
The customers are n't asking for DRM ; they 're asking for the files and you 're telling them and their money to fuck off .
How much longer can the agenda of revenue avoidance last , before the stockholders figure it out and fire/sue you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The group is announcing that it has adopted a new file format that, like the DVD, will allow any company to create a compatible deviceDoes "any company" include Debian?
Does it include the mplayer and mythtv teams?
Can I look up the spec and implement it myself, without signing any contracts?
If not, then these guys are a joke as far as "standards" are concerned.That is why there never has been, and never will be, any DRM standard.
If it's a standard, then people can create or maintain their implementations.
If people can maintain their implementations, then restrictions can't be enforced through "technical measures.
"  You can't have technical enforcement (i.e.
deliberate bugs) and maintainability at the same time.
That's an oxymoron.The CD, not the DVD, is the past that you should draw your inspiration from.
Although I'd say that instead of looking to the past, you should look at the current market, where the unDRMed file (forget the media itself; think stream of bytes) is the minimum baseline standard.Hollywood needs consumers to buy more digital contentHollywood, you keep saying that, but the working playback products are already on the market and widely deployed right now, without you having to try to create another fake standard or talk any tech companies into joining anything.
There are millions of customers waiting for a product from you, Hollywood, not waiting for a product from Taiwan.
We already have our kickass Taiwan stuff and we love it.The pirates offer movie2009.720p.x264.avi and it plays perfectly.
The current defacto standards that the market has already settled on, have everything that customers want.
Where's your file?
Sell me a file that mplayer/xine/mythtv (without any weird patches from you) can play.
If you don't have one for sale, then you can't even claim the pirates are impacting your market, because you're not in the market yet.
Statements that you want to increase sales, are a joke that nobody can take seriously, and only make you look either stupid or dishonest.It's time to open for business.
The customers aren't asking for DRM; they're asking for the files and you're telling them and their money to fuck off.
How much longer can the agenda of revenue avoidance last, before the stockholders figure it out and fire/sue you?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655646</id>
	<title>Re:You're paying for the content , not the format</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1262710500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like paying for price fixing?</p><p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30-cd-settlement\_x.htm" title="usatoday.com">http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30-cd-settlement\_x.htm</a> [usatoday.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like paying for price fixing ? http : //www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30-cd-settlement \ _x.htm [ usatoday.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like paying for price fixing?http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30-cd-settlement\_x.htm [usatoday.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654242</id>
	<title>DECE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262704020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer 09F9</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer 09F9</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer 09F9</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655048</id>
	<title>Loss of privacy</title>
	<author>oren</author>
	<datestamp>1262708100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The system you describe is similar to what is described in TFA (licenses stored in the cloud, play content anywhere). One issue with it is further erosion of privacy. Whoever owns the licenses service knows where you are, what you watch, how often you watch it, etc.
</p><p>
Then again, Amazon knows what books you have bought, and the Kindle could track what you read and when if they wanted to; your mobile phone knows where you are; Netflix knows what you watch and your DVR knows what you watch and when; Google knows what you are searching for; Facebook knows who you friends are...
</p><p>
Perhaps David Brin ("The transparent society") was right and privacy is doomed no matter what. People who grew up in a world where it existed will just fade away and the children of today will not understand what the fuss is about. I'm old enough to be deeply uncomfortable with this, though.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The system you describe is similar to what is described in TFA ( licenses stored in the cloud , play content anywhere ) .
One issue with it is further erosion of privacy .
Whoever owns the licenses service knows where you are , what you watch , how often you watch it , etc .
Then again , Amazon knows what books you have bought , and the Kindle could track what you read and when if they wanted to ; your mobile phone knows where you are ; Netflix knows what you watch and your DVR knows what you watch and when ; Google knows what you are searching for ; Facebook knows who you friends are.. . Perhaps David Brin ( " The transparent society " ) was right and privacy is doomed no matter what .
People who grew up in a world where it existed will just fade away and the children of today will not understand what the fuss is about .
I 'm old enough to be deeply uncomfortable with this , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The system you describe is similar to what is described in TFA (licenses stored in the cloud, play content anywhere).
One issue with it is further erosion of privacy.
Whoever owns the licenses service knows where you are, what you watch, how often you watch it, etc.
Then again, Amazon knows what books you have bought, and the Kindle could track what you read and when if they wanted to; your mobile phone knows where you are; Netflix knows what you watch and your DVR knows what you watch and when; Google knows what you are searching for; Facebook knows who you friends are...

Perhaps David Brin ("The transparent society") was right and privacy is doomed no matter what.
People who grew up in a world where it existed will just fade away and the children of today will not understand what the fuss is about.
I'm old enough to be deeply uncomfortable with this, though.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656690</id>
	<title>Re:Again?</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1262714340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The whole economics of today seems like it's paying only for exorbitant CEO profits and studio whoring.</p></div><p>It's almost like movies and music are a business.</p><p>The "new freedoms" comment though, that's a big Orwellian WTF until you read the article.  They want to be able to make DRMed content portable.  Which is admirable, but, ultimately probably flawed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole economics of today seems like it 's paying only for exorbitant CEO profits and studio whoring.It 's almost like movies and music are a business.The " new freedoms " comment though , that 's a big Orwellian WTF until you read the article .
They want to be able to make DRMed content portable .
Which is admirable , but , ultimately probably flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole economics of today seems like it's paying only for exorbitant CEO profits and studio whoring.It's almost like movies and music are a business.The "new freedoms" comment though, that's a big Orwellian WTF until you read the article.
They want to be able to make DRMed content portable.
Which is admirable, but, ultimately probably flawed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656174</id>
	<title>Re:Plays for Sure!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rights locker company upgrading the DRM to DECEv2</p></div><p>so, the first version is named DECEv?  how apt and refreshingly honest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rights locker company upgrading the DRM to DECEv2so , the first version is named DECEv ?
how apt and refreshingly honest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rights locker company upgrading the DRM to DECEv2so, the first version is named DECEv?
how apt and refreshingly honest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654544</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>EastCoastSurfer</author>
	<datestamp>1262705880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You're the one who sold out to Microsoft and bought an Xbox to begin with. Now you expect to not be screwed? Whiner.</p></div></blockquote><p>So is the movie I wanted to see (Inglorious Bastards) available anywhere for streaming rent?  I know it's not on Netflix.  PSN?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're the one who sold out to Microsoft and bought an Xbox to begin with .
Now you expect to not be screwed ?
Whiner.So is the movie I wanted to see ( Inglorious Bastards ) available anywhere for streaming rent ?
I know it 's not on Netflix .
PSN ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're the one who sold out to Microsoft and bought an Xbox to begin with.
Now you expect to not be screwed?
Whiner.So is the movie I wanted to see (Inglorious Bastards) available anywhere for streaming rent?
I know it's not on Netflix.
PSN?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654692</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on how big</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1262706480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What if ICANN goes under? The internet goes down.</p></div><p>...and lots of big, influential businesses start losing money hand over fist* so Something Gets Done About It very rapidly.

</p><p>If the central DRM provider goes under then lots of little, uninfluential people** have to buy <i>The Matrix</i> again and lots of big, influential businesses  <i>make</i> money hand over fist. Lots of crocodile tears - but all they do is make the champagne taste salty.


</p><p>*especially true in the case of the porn industry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
</p><p>**who waived any guarantee of lifetime access to their purchases when they clicked through the EULA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if ICANN goes under ?
The internet goes down....and lots of big , influential businesses start losing money hand over fist * so Something Gets Done About It very rapidly .
If the central DRM provider goes under then lots of little , uninfluential people * * have to buy The Matrix again and lots of big , influential businesses make money hand over fist .
Lots of crocodile tears - but all they do is make the champagne taste salty .
* especially true in the case of the porn industry : - ) * * who waived any guarantee of lifetime access to their purchases when they clicked through the EULA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if ICANN goes under?
The internet goes down....and lots of big, influential businesses start losing money hand over fist* so Something Gets Done About It very rapidly.
If the central DRM provider goes under then lots of little, uninfluential people** have to buy The Matrix again and lots of big, influential businesses  make money hand over fist.
Lots of crocodile tears - but all they do is make the champagne taste salty.
*especially true in the case of the porn industry :-)
**who waived any guarantee of lifetime access to their purchases when they clicked through the EULA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654638</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>slifox</author>
	<datestamp>1262706360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is all your examples are very short-sighted:<p><div class="quote"><p>It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)</p></div><p>If you don't pay taxes, that's less money towards schools, infrastructure maintenance, police/firefighter salaries, etc -- all of society loses, including you.
<br>
Furthermore, if you don't pay taxes, you'll probably get audited, fined, and maybe even jailed.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's easier to not follow the street lights (you get there faster, if at all)</p></div><p>If you don't follow streetlights, you risk getting into a car crash, possibly injuring or killing yourself, other drivers, or even innocent bystanders (e.g. children walking to school) -- all of society loses, including you.
<br>
Furthermore, if you run streetlights, you'll probably get pulled over, fined, and maybe even jailed.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's easier not to care about others (less worries)</p></div><p>If you don't care about others, they are less likely to care about you. If you act like an ass to others, they're more likely to act like an ass towards you -- both parties lose (unless you like being treated like crap).
<br>
If everyone in society didn't care about anyone else, then all of society would lose.
<br> <br>

So tell me, who do I hurt if I pay once for a CD or DVD, then rip or pirate it and play the unlocked files on any/every device I own? Who do I hurt when I lend my copy to a friend (who, if he finds he likes it, may even purchase his own copy)?
<br> <br>
The answer is no one -- the artists and businessmen who made and sold the product were fairly compensated, and I get to enjoy their work. What DRM does is help the businessmen charge me once for each device I want to play it on, and that hurts \_me\_</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is all your examples are very short-sighted : It 's easier to not pay taxes ( less forms to fill in ) If you do n't pay taxes , that 's less money towards schools , infrastructure maintenance , police/firefighter salaries , etc -- all of society loses , including you .
Furthermore , if you do n't pay taxes , you 'll probably get audited , fined , and maybe even jailed.It 's easier to not follow the street lights ( you get there faster , if at all ) If you do n't follow streetlights , you risk getting into a car crash , possibly injuring or killing yourself , other drivers , or even innocent bystanders ( e.g .
children walking to school ) -- all of society loses , including you .
Furthermore , if you run streetlights , you 'll probably get pulled over , fined , and maybe even jailed.It 's easier not to care about others ( less worries ) If you do n't care about others , they are less likely to care about you .
If you act like an ass to others , they 're more likely to act like an ass towards you -- both parties lose ( unless you like being treated like crap ) .
If everyone in society did n't care about anyone else , then all of society would lose .
So tell me , who do I hurt if I pay once for a CD or DVD , then rip or pirate it and play the unlocked files on any/every device I own ?
Who do I hurt when I lend my copy to a friend ( who , if he finds he likes it , may even purchase his own copy ) ?
The answer is no one -- the artists and businessmen who made and sold the product were fairly compensated , and I get to enjoy their work .
What DRM does is help the businessmen charge me once for each device I want to play it on , and that hurts \ _me \ _</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is all your examples are very short-sighted:It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)If you don't pay taxes, that's less money towards schools, infrastructure maintenance, police/firefighter salaries, etc -- all of society loses, including you.
Furthermore, if you don't pay taxes, you'll probably get audited, fined, and maybe even jailed.It's easier to not follow the street lights (you get there faster, if at all)If you don't follow streetlights, you risk getting into a car crash, possibly injuring or killing yourself, other drivers, or even innocent bystanders (e.g.
children walking to school) -- all of society loses, including you.
Furthermore, if you run streetlights, you'll probably get pulled over, fined, and maybe even jailed.It's easier not to care about others (less worries)If you don't care about others, they are less likely to care about you.
If you act like an ass to others, they're more likely to act like an ass towards you -- both parties lose (unless you like being treated like crap).
If everyone in society didn't care about anyone else, then all of society would lose.
So tell me, who do I hurt if I pay once for a CD or DVD, then rip or pirate it and play the unlocked files on any/every device I own?
Who do I hurt when I lend my copy to a friend (who, if he finds he likes it, may even purchase his own copy)?
The answer is no one -- the artists and businessmen who made and sold the product were fairly compensated, and I get to enjoy their work.
What DRM does is help the businessmen charge me once for each device I want to play it on, and that hurts \_me\_
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655480</id>
	<title>Re:Pirating</title>
	<author>zoward</author>
	<datestamp>1262709960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The creators of DRM schemes like this don't care if the consumer wants the DRM.  As long as they can get all of the major content providers board, they're good to go.  The content providers then ram it down the throats of the electronics providers (the ideal way to do this will be by getting legislation in place if possible, or some kind of FCC mandate), and then restrict access to their "best" content using the new DRM scheme.  Hey, it worked for HDMI/HDCP.  Many new electronics come with HDMI-out but no DVI-out.</p><p>The major problem with this cycle is the internet, where consumers can get high quality copies of media with no DRM to speak of, for free.  The hope at his point is eliminate that by legislating against it on the international level. Will it work? Probably not.</p><p>I'm not particularly concerned about the locked down media, since much of what I listen to is legally available on the internet (or I already own it in MP3/FLAG/OGG format), but I don't particularly enjoy paying for the hardware forced into newer computers, set top boxes, TV's, stereo's, etc, for whatever DRM scheme du jour arrives.  My only request would be that whoever cracks it respectfully waits until it's too widespread for the content people to just drop it on the floor and roll out a new one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The creators of DRM schemes like this do n't care if the consumer wants the DRM .
As long as they can get all of the major content providers board , they 're good to go .
The content providers then ram it down the throats of the electronics providers ( the ideal way to do this will be by getting legislation in place if possible , or some kind of FCC mandate ) , and then restrict access to their " best " content using the new DRM scheme .
Hey , it worked for HDMI/HDCP .
Many new electronics come with HDMI-out but no DVI-out.The major problem with this cycle is the internet , where consumers can get high quality copies of media with no DRM to speak of , for free .
The hope at his point is eliminate that by legislating against it on the international level .
Will it work ?
Probably not.I 'm not particularly concerned about the locked down media , since much of what I listen to is legally available on the internet ( or I already own it in MP3/FLAG/OGG format ) , but I do n't particularly enjoy paying for the hardware forced into newer computers , set top boxes , TV 's , stereo 's , etc , for whatever DRM scheme du jour arrives .
My only request would be that whoever cracks it respectfully waits until it 's too widespread for the content people to just drop it on the floor and roll out a new one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The creators of DRM schemes like this don't care if the consumer wants the DRM.
As long as they can get all of the major content providers board, they're good to go.
The content providers then ram it down the throats of the electronics providers (the ideal way to do this will be by getting legislation in place if possible, or some kind of FCC mandate), and then restrict access to their "best" content using the new DRM scheme.
Hey, it worked for HDMI/HDCP.
Many new electronics come with HDMI-out but no DVI-out.The major problem with this cycle is the internet, where consumers can get high quality copies of media with no DRM to speak of, for free.
The hope at his point is eliminate that by legislating against it on the international level.
Will it work?
Probably not.I'm not particularly concerned about the locked down media, since much of what I listen to is legally available on the internet (or I already own it in MP3/FLAG/OGG format), but I don't particularly enjoy paying for the hardware forced into newer computers, set top boxes, TV's, stereo's, etc, for whatever DRM scheme du jour arrives.
My only request would be that whoever cracks it respectfully waits until it's too widespread for the content people to just drop it on the floor and roll out a new one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655572</id>
	<title>Forget lockdown: watermark &amp; do limited tracki</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1262710260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There will always be an analog hole for people who just want "the video" played beginning-to-end.  There will also be experts who can make a scene-by-scene copies using high-resolution analog video-capture devices, and re-build a playable media file from those scenes.</p><p>If you are a content vendor, what you want is a combination of durable and fragile watermarks that will:</p><p>*Have "hi def" equipment detect copies that are not "original" or "perfect copies of the original" and either refuse to play them or play them at "low def"<br>*Using the durable watermarks, trace bootleg copies back to the original legitimate copy, even analog copies.  If there are enough copies of a given original, use the court system as your rights management tool.<br>*For original copies and perfect copies of original copies, "phone home" one out of every 100 plays.  Report back the network address and player serial number and the media serial number.  If it's a widely pirated "perfect copy original" use the courts system to enforce your rights.<br>*For files marked for rental, refuse to play after the time expires.  Rental information would be stored in durable watermarks.  Yes, this could be defeated but it will deter casual or unsophisticated renters and make "throw away rentals" practical.</p><p>Why is this better than Digital Restrictions Management?</p><p>*It won't annoy legitimate customers unless they inadvertently bought media that had been previously illegally copied.<br>*Casual and even semi-serious copying will be easier to detect, and that will be a deterrent to all but the most expert or those who leech well-made copies from elsewhere.<br>*There is no foolproof way to prevent expert copies, and no foolproof way to prevent leechers from getting those once they are in the wild.  Don't be a Don Quixote.<br>*You don't have the "bankruptcy problem" - if the phone home attempt fails the movie still plays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will always be an analog hole for people who just want " the video " played beginning-to-end .
There will also be experts who can make a scene-by-scene copies using high-resolution analog video-capture devices , and re-build a playable media file from those scenes.If you are a content vendor , what you want is a combination of durable and fragile watermarks that will : * Have " hi def " equipment detect copies that are not " original " or " perfect copies of the original " and either refuse to play them or play them at " low def " * Using the durable watermarks , trace bootleg copies back to the original legitimate copy , even analog copies .
If there are enough copies of a given original , use the court system as your rights management tool .
* For original copies and perfect copies of original copies , " phone home " one out of every 100 plays .
Report back the network address and player serial number and the media serial number .
If it 's a widely pirated " perfect copy original " use the courts system to enforce your rights .
* For files marked for rental , refuse to play after the time expires .
Rental information would be stored in durable watermarks .
Yes , this could be defeated but it will deter casual or unsophisticated renters and make " throw away rentals " practical.Why is this better than Digital Restrictions Management ?
* It wo n't annoy legitimate customers unless they inadvertently bought media that had been previously illegally copied .
* Casual and even semi-serious copying will be easier to detect , and that will be a deterrent to all but the most expert or those who leech well-made copies from elsewhere .
* There is no foolproof way to prevent expert copies , and no foolproof way to prevent leechers from getting those once they are in the wild .
Do n't be a Don Quixote .
* You do n't have the " bankruptcy problem " - if the phone home attempt fails the movie still plays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will always be an analog hole for people who just want "the video" played beginning-to-end.
There will also be experts who can make a scene-by-scene copies using high-resolution analog video-capture devices, and re-build a playable media file from those scenes.If you are a content vendor, what you want is a combination of durable and fragile watermarks that will:*Have "hi def" equipment detect copies that are not "original" or "perfect copies of the original" and either refuse to play them or play them at "low def"*Using the durable watermarks, trace bootleg copies back to the original legitimate copy, even analog copies.
If there are enough copies of a given original, use the court system as your rights management tool.
*For original copies and perfect copies of original copies, "phone home" one out of every 100 plays.
Report back the network address and player serial number and the media serial number.
If it's a widely pirated "perfect copy original" use the courts system to enforce your rights.
*For files marked for rental, refuse to play after the time expires.
Rental information would be stored in durable watermarks.
Yes, this could be defeated but it will deter casual or unsophisticated renters and make "throw away rentals" practical.Why is this better than Digital Restrictions Management?
*It won't annoy legitimate customers unless they inadvertently bought media that had been previously illegally copied.
*Casual and even semi-serious copying will be easier to detect, and that will be a deterrent to all but the most expert or those who leech well-made copies from elsewhere.
*There is no foolproof way to prevent expert copies, and no foolproof way to prevent leechers from getting those once they are in the wild.
Don't be a Don Quixote.
*You don't have the "bankruptcy problem" - if the phone home attempt fails the movie still plays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655922</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262711640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Amazon MP3 actually fills my exact requirements, high quality, unencrypted, unencumbered media,</i></p><p>If I actually want to buy an album as opposed to a single track, I often find it's cheaper to buy it in physical format and rip the CD, and I end up with a lossless version (flac) rather than a lossy compressed mp3.</p><p><i>Amazon MP3 offers a superior product to that produced by piracy.</i></p><p>No, it offers an inferior version if the pirate version is flac format (as is fairly typical now are now). I expect something I pay for to at least equal the pirate quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon MP3 actually fills my exact requirements , high quality , unencrypted , unencumbered media,If I actually want to buy an album as opposed to a single track , I often find it 's cheaper to buy it in physical format and rip the CD , and I end up with a lossless version ( flac ) rather than a lossy compressed mp3.Amazon MP3 offers a superior product to that produced by piracy.No , it offers an inferior version if the pirate version is flac format ( as is fairly typical now are now ) .
I expect something I pay for to at least equal the pirate quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon MP3 actually fills my exact requirements, high quality, unencrypted, unencumbered media,If I actually want to buy an album as opposed to a single track, I often find it's cheaper to buy it in physical format and rip the CD, and I end up with a lossless version (flac) rather than a lossy compressed mp3.Amazon MP3 offers a superior product to that produced by piracy.No, it offers an inferior version if the pirate version is flac format (as is fairly typical now are now).
I expect something I pay for to at least equal the pirate quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654734</id>
	<title>Re:DRM hurts legitimate customers only</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1262706720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It holds water a bit, in fact.</p><p>The reason why we punish all these things is that we perceive them as unjust. Likewise, under normal circumstances, customers should perceive as unjust that they paid for something while someone pirated it. But in this case, they perceive as more unjust that they have to hoop through additional loops on top of that. It's a cure worse than a disease problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It holds water a bit , in fact.The reason why we punish all these things is that we perceive them as unjust .
Likewise , under normal circumstances , customers should perceive as unjust that they paid for something while someone pirated it .
But in this case , they perceive as more unjust that they have to hoop through additional loops on top of that .
It 's a cure worse than a disease problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It holds water a bit, in fact.The reason why we punish all these things is that we perceive them as unjust.
Likewise, under normal circumstances, customers should perceive as unjust that they paid for something while someone pirated it.
But in this case, they perceive as more unjust that they have to hoop through additional loops on top of that.
It's a cure worse than a disease problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655618</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading summary</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262710440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>side note: of course this will fail</i></p><p>It will fail for two reasons:</p><ol> <li>DRM cannot work; it will be broken and the content will go on the net</li><li>You'll have to buy <i>all new equipment!</i> I paid a thousand bucks for my TV seven years ago,and I'm NOT buying another one until it breaks. Do these morons think everybody is going to replace all their electronics just so they can impliment a new DRM? I think these people are doing WAY too much cocaine.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>side note : of course this will failIt will fail for two reasons : DRM can not work ; it will be broken and the content will go on the netYou 'll have to buy all new equipment !
I paid a thousand bucks for my TV seven years ago,and I 'm NOT buying another one until it breaks .
Do these morons think everybody is going to replace all their electronics just so they can impliment a new DRM ?
I think these people are doing WAY too much cocaine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>side note: of course this will failIt will fail for two reasons: DRM cannot work; it will be broken and the content will go on the netYou'll have to buy all new equipment!
I paid a thousand bucks for my TV seven years ago,and I'm NOT buying another one until it breaks.
Do these morons think everybody is going to replace all their electronics just so they can impliment a new DRM?
I think these people are doing WAY too much cocaine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655526</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want physical copies anymore</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1262710080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you ok with having a We can revoke this license at any time for any or no reason clause like Steam has?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you ok with having a We can revoke this license at any time for any or no reason clause like Steam has ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you ok with having a We can revoke this license at any time for any or no reason clause like Steam has?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657704</id>
	<title>Re:Again?</title>
	<author>CrazedSanity</author>
	<datestamp>1262717520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truly ridiculous part is how bass-ackwards the industry is becoming.</p><p>First, they attempt to put safeguards in things to keep them from being copied digitally or otherwise (i.e. "MacroVision" for VHS, various things on DVDs &amp; CDs like purposely writing bad blocks in the data).</p><p>Next, implement silly DRM into the media so you can copy it on their terms: Sony's rootkit issue for audio CDs; BS DRM that requires you have an internet connection before attempting to use your digital file--assuming that the DRM server is still running.</p><p>Now they've decided to "make it easy": you can watch your digital copies wherever you want, on whatever you want, as long as you're using the industry's "user-friendly" online systems to stream it, i.e. "D.E.C.E.".</p><p>OOH!  I GOTS AN IDEA!</p><p>Let's take this DECE thing, but don't require an online system.  Take out the part where they've got to have special hardware to encrypt it so anybody can use any existing system to watch this content.  Now EVERYBODY can use it!</p><p>Now, setup an online content system so people can buy &amp; download digital copies in a couple of clicks, and avoid putting any "codes" into the thing.  No typing codes to activate the content or to copy it to another device.  Now you've got a system that anyone can use these digital copies on any device without being online, and they can buy new copies whenever they want!  Oh, wait... this scheme doesn't have any DRM in it... let's call the new scheme "NRM": "No Rights Management".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truly ridiculous part is how bass-ackwards the industry is becoming.First , they attempt to put safeguards in things to keep them from being copied digitally or otherwise ( i.e .
" MacroVision " for VHS , various things on DVDs &amp; CDs like purposely writing bad blocks in the data ) .Next , implement silly DRM into the media so you can copy it on their terms : Sony 's rootkit issue for audio CDs ; BS DRM that requires you have an internet connection before attempting to use your digital file--assuming that the DRM server is still running.Now they 've decided to " make it easy " : you can watch your digital copies wherever you want , on whatever you want , as long as you 're using the industry 's " user-friendly " online systems to stream it , i.e .
" D.E.C.E. " .OOH ! I GOTS AN IDEA ! Let 's take this DECE thing , but do n't require an online system .
Take out the part where they 've got to have special hardware to encrypt it so anybody can use any existing system to watch this content .
Now EVERYBODY can use it ! Now , setup an online content system so people can buy &amp; download digital copies in a couple of clicks , and avoid putting any " codes " into the thing .
No typing codes to activate the content or to copy it to another device .
Now you 've got a system that anyone can use these digital copies on any device without being online , and they can buy new copies whenever they want !
Oh , wait... this scheme does n't have any DRM in it... let 's call the new scheme " NRM " : " No Rights Management " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truly ridiculous part is how bass-ackwards the industry is becoming.First, they attempt to put safeguards in things to keep them from being copied digitally or otherwise (i.e.
"MacroVision" for VHS, various things on DVDs &amp; CDs like purposely writing bad blocks in the data).Next, implement silly DRM into the media so you can copy it on their terms: Sony's rootkit issue for audio CDs; BS DRM that requires you have an internet connection before attempting to use your digital file--assuming that the DRM server is still running.Now they've decided to "make it easy": you can watch your digital copies wherever you want, on whatever you want, as long as you're using the industry's "user-friendly" online systems to stream it, i.e.
"D.E.C.E.".OOH!  I GOTS AN IDEA!Let's take this DECE thing, but don't require an online system.
Take out the part where they've got to have special hardware to encrypt it so anybody can use any existing system to watch this content.
Now EVERYBODY can use it!Now, setup an online content system so people can buy &amp; download digital copies in a couple of clicks, and avoid putting any "codes" into the thing.
No typing codes to activate the content or to copy it to another device.
Now you've got a system that anyone can use these digital copies on any device without being online, and they can buy new copies whenever they want!
Oh, wait... this scheme doesn't have any DRM in it... let's call the new scheme "NRM": "No Rights Management".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30660066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30679278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30659686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30664764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30661412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30666972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30679222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30659884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30665214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30680120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30659518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30667038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30660324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30671208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1331208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30664764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654638
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30679278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30660324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30659518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654298
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658696
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656094
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30665214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655784
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30679222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30659686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30659884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30667038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654268
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654544
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30660066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654792
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30661412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655042
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655524
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30680120
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30666972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655710
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655316
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655860
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30658250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30671208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30657136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30656500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1331208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30654642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1331208.30655986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
