<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_19_2253213</id>
	<title>Sherlock Holmes and the Copyright Tangle</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263927840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>spagiola passes along a New York Times piece on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/books/19sherlock.html?ref=books&amp;pagewanted=all">the copyright travails of Sherlock Holmes</a>. <i>"At his age [123 years], Holmes would logically seem to have entered the public domain. But not only is the character still under copyright in the United States, for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownership issues so tangled that Professor Moriarty wouldn't have wished them upon him."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>spagiola passes along a New York Times piece on the copyright travails of Sherlock Holmes .
" At his age [ 123 years ] , Holmes would logically seem to have entered the public domain .
But not only is the character still under copyright in the United States , for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownership issues so tangled that Professor Moriarty would n't have wished them upon him .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>spagiola passes along a New York Times piece on the copyright travails of Sherlock Holmes.
"At his age [123 years], Holmes would logically seem to have entered the public domain.
But not only is the character still under copyright in the United States, for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownership issues so tangled that Professor Moriarty wouldn't have wished them upon him.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830844</id>
	<title>You can't copyright a character.</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1263997200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can Trademark a character, but you can't Copyright him.
<br>You can Copyright "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (which is in the Public Domain), but "Sherlock Holmes" isn't Copyrightable.
</p><p>Note that much of the Holmes canon is in the Public Domain, since it was originally published in the 19th century.  There are only a few Conan Doyle stories (and a great many movies and Holmes stories by other authors) that were Copyrighted late enough to still be under Copyright.
</p><p>Note also that owning the Trademark for Holmes allows one to play goalkeeper for anyone who wants to do an original Holmes work (and extract money in the process), but it doesn't actually allow one to control the republishing of the original Holmes stories from the 19th Century.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can Trademark a character , but you ca n't Copyright him .
You can Copyright " The Hound of the Baskervilles " ( which is in the Public Domain ) , but " Sherlock Holmes " is n't Copyrightable .
Note that much of the Holmes canon is in the Public Domain , since it was originally published in the 19th century .
There are only a few Conan Doyle stories ( and a great many movies and Holmes stories by other authors ) that were Copyrighted late enough to still be under Copyright .
Note also that owning the Trademark for Holmes allows one to play goalkeeper for anyone who wants to do an original Holmes work ( and extract money in the process ) , but it does n't actually allow one to control the republishing of the original Holmes stories from the 19th Century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can Trademark a character, but you can't Copyright him.
You can Copyright "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (which is in the Public Domain), but "Sherlock Holmes" isn't Copyrightable.
Note that much of the Holmes canon is in the Public Domain, since it was originally published in the 19th century.
There are only a few Conan Doyle stories (and a great many movies and Holmes stories by other authors) that were Copyrighted late enough to still be under Copyright.
Note also that owning the Trademark for Holmes allows one to play goalkeeper for anyone who wants to do an original Holmes work (and extract money in the process), but it doesn't actually allow one to control the republishing of the original Holmes stories from the 19th Century.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070</id>
	<title>The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264018380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, nobody wants to give up rights to it because they can make money from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , nobody wants to give up rights to it because they can make money from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, nobody wants to give up rights to it because they can make money from it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831462</id>
	<title>Re:Disney</title>
	<author>Nathrael</author>
	<datestamp>1264000980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One way to stop this would be to turn Mickey into an pop culture symbol for a pedophile or terrorist...</p></div><p>

Oh, you mean like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow's\_Pioneers" title="wikipedia.org">Fafour</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One way to stop this would be to turn Mickey into an pop culture symbol for a pedophile or terrorist.. . Oh , you mean like Fafour [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One way to stop this would be to turn Mickey into an pop culture symbol for a pedophile or terrorist...

Oh, you mean like Fafour [wikipedia.org]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831608</id>
	<title>Re:where does the 2023 date come from?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264001580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Holmes stories come under the 1909 copyright act, which uses fixed terms--the author's date of death is irrelevant.  Originally, under the 1909 act you got an initial 28-year term, and you could file a renewal for another 28-year term (56 years total).  Later, the second term was extended, first to 47 years (75 years total), then to 67 years (95 years total).</p><p>This extension took place starting in 1978.  So everything published before the end of 1922 (1976 minus 56) is in the public domain, but stuff published in 1923 (provided a renewal was filed in 1951) stays under copyright until 2018 (1923 plus 95).</p><p>Nearly all the Sherlock Holmes stories (and all of the famous ones) were published before 12/31/1922, and \_are\_ in the public domain in the US.  But a few were published as late as 1927, and thus retain a US copyright until 2022 (1927 plus 95).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Holmes stories come under the 1909 copyright act , which uses fixed terms--the author 's date of death is irrelevant .
Originally , under the 1909 act you got an initial 28-year term , and you could file a renewal for another 28-year term ( 56 years total ) .
Later , the second term was extended , first to 47 years ( 75 years total ) , then to 67 years ( 95 years total ) .This extension took place starting in 1978 .
So everything published before the end of 1922 ( 1976 minus 56 ) is in the public domain , but stuff published in 1923 ( provided a renewal was filed in 1951 ) stays under copyright until 2018 ( 1923 plus 95 ) .Nearly all the Sherlock Holmes stories ( and all of the famous ones ) were published before 12/31/1922 , and \ _are \ _ in the public domain in the US .
But a few were published as late as 1927 , and thus retain a US copyright until 2022 ( 1927 plus 95 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Holmes stories come under the 1909 copyright act, which uses fixed terms--the author's date of death is irrelevant.
Originally, under the 1909 act you got an initial 28-year term, and you could file a renewal for another 28-year term (56 years total).
Later, the second term was extended, first to 47 years (75 years total), then to 67 years (95 years total).This extension took place starting in 1978.
So everything published before the end of 1922 (1976 minus 56) is in the public domain, but stuff published in 1923 (provided a renewal was filed in 1951) stays under copyright until 2018 (1923 plus 95).Nearly all the Sherlock Holmes stories (and all of the famous ones) were published before 12/31/1922, and \_are\_ in the public domain in the US.
But a few were published as late as 1927, and thus retain a US copyright until 2022 (1927 plus 95).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30841624</id>
	<title>Re:Wanna fix copyright?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264002960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>IF you seriously want to fix copyright law why not start with this simple oath:<br> <br>

"I will not vote for a lawyer."<br>
"I Will not vote for a Democrat"<br>
"I will not vote for a Republican"<br>
"I will not vote for a millionaire"<br> <br>

<b>There problem solved,</b></p></div>
</blockquote><p>

How does voting for no-one help. If no-one votes, the government will simply pick itself.<br> <br>

You haven't thought this plan through have you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IF you seriously want to fix copyright law why not start with this simple oath : " I will not vote for a lawyer .
" " I Will not vote for a Democrat " " I will not vote for a Republican " " I will not vote for a millionaire " There problem solved , How does voting for no-one help .
If no-one votes , the government will simply pick itself .
You have n't thought this plan through have you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IF you seriously want to fix copyright law why not start with this simple oath: 

"I will not vote for a lawyer.
"
"I Will not vote for a Democrat"
"I will not vote for a Republican"
"I will not vote for a millionaire" 

There problem solved,


How does voting for no-one help.
If no-one votes, the government will simply pick itself.
You haven't thought this plan through have you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831990</id>
	<title>Re:Disney</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1264003320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which makes Disney the worst kind of hypocrite, since they've built their empire on public domain works, from <i>Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs</i> (1937) and <i>Pinocchio</i> (1940) to <i>The Hunchback of Notre Dame</i> (1996) and <i>Rapunzel</i> (later this year) and many others in between. Over 70 years of taking from the public domain and what have they given back? NOTHING. Fuckers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which makes Disney the worst kind of hypocrite , since they 've built their empire on public domain works , from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs ( 1937 ) and Pinocchio ( 1940 ) to The Hunchback of Notre Dame ( 1996 ) and Rapunzel ( later this year ) and many others in between .
Over 70 years of taking from the public domain and what have they given back ?
NOTHING. Fuckers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which makes Disney the worst kind of hypocrite, since they've built their empire on public domain works, from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) and Pinocchio (1940) to The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) and Rapunzel (later this year) and many others in between.
Over 70 years of taking from the public domain and what have they given back?
NOTHING. Fuckers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30843434</id>
	<title>Re:Disney</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264065180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, let's see. Seems like this has already been done [wikipedia.org], courtesy of Hamas, and continues. Remember Farfour (~= Mickey Mouse) [Wikipedia]:</p><blockquote><div><p>On the show, Farfour has expressed radical views. He has stated such things as: "You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists"[19] and "We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness, and liberate Jerusalem, God willing, liberate Iraq, God willing, and liberate all the countries of the Muslims invaded by the murderers."[18][19] In episode 103, he simulates shooting an AK-47 and throwing grenades.[4][20]</p></div></blockquote><p>And Nahoul, the bumblebee (Maya the bee?):</p><blockquote><div><p>On the show, Nahoul has expressed radical views. He has stated such things as: "We will liberate Al-Aqsa from the filth of the criminal Jews,"[27] and "We will go on Jihad when we grow up."[27] In episode 204, Nahoul visits the zoo where streaks of cruelty become apparent for the (first?) time. Nahoul states: "The cats here are asleep - the poor, wretched, imprisoned cats. I feel like abusing them. This cat is asleep. I feel like attacking it." [28] Nahoul then proceeds to swing cats by their tails and throw them around their cage[28].</p></div></blockquote><p>And Assoud the rabbit (Bugs Bunny):</p><blockquote><div><p>Before Nahoul's death, Assoud lived in Lebanon; he returned "in order to return to the homeland and liberate it."[30] On his deathbed, he instructs Palestinian children that they must fight and die to liberate Haifa, Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities.[32][33] Assoud hinted in episode 302 that he would be replaced by a tiger when he was martyred.</p></div></blockquote><p>And it continues:</p><blockquote><div><p>Nassur, a brown bear, is the current co-host of Tomorrow's Pioneers. He claims to have come to the Gaza Strip to become one of the mujahideen and to defend the children of Palestine (although he gives evidence that he may have come from Iran). As such he has vowed in his debut episode on February 13, 2009, to "join the 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades where his activities will include such things as "wag[ing] Jihad" and "carry[ing] a gun."</p></div></blockquote><p>Needless to say, Disney was "not amused":</p><blockquote><div><p>The Disney corporation initially had no public statement on the use of Mickey Mouse's image in the Farfour character; Disney CEO Robert Iger later said, "We were appalled by the use of our character to disseminate that kind of message." He explained the initial quiet by saying, "I just didn't think it would have any effect... I think it should have been obvious how the company felt about the subject." [24].</p></div></blockquote><p>and</p><blockquote><div><p>73-year-old Diane Disney Miller, Mickey Mouse creator Walt Disney's last surviving child, commented to the press that, "What we're dealing with here is pure evil and you can't ignore that." She further commented that, "It's not just [about] Mickey, it's [about] indoctrinating children like this, teaching them to be evil. The world loves children, and this is just going against the grain of humanity."[82]</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, and it isn't only Hamas that is doing that:</p><blockquote><div><p>Other Palestinian children's programs have allegedly used the Mickey Mouse image to incite radical activities. According to the Anti-Defamation League, a 1998 episode of the program The Children's Club on official Palestinian Authority television had a "Mickey Mouse"-type figure amidst children praising suicide attacks against Israelis.[5]</p></div></blockquote><p>and</p><blockquote><div><p>In September 2008, Fatah also began broadcasting a competing show targeting children on the Official PA TV network. This program also features use of Mickey and Minnie Mouse.[38]</p><blockquote><div><p>Sadly, the misuse of cartoon characters continues, and despite the fact that copyright gets extended. The honest people care about copyrights, and they are the ones who are onerously limited in their access to culture, while those who indoctrinate hatred don't give two hoots (well, they do periodically change the character to move on to offend another show character).</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , let 's see .
Seems like this has already been done [ wikipedia.org ] , courtesy of Hamas , and continues .
Remember Farfour ( ~ = Mickey Mouse ) [ Wikipedia ] : On the show , Farfour has expressed radical views .
He has stated such things as : " You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists " [ 19 ] and " We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness , and liberate Jerusalem , God willing , liberate Iraq , God willing , and liberate all the countries of the Muslims invaded by the murderers .
" [ 18 ] [ 19 ] In episode 103 , he simulates shooting an AK-47 and throwing grenades .
[ 4 ] [ 20 ] And Nahoul , the bumblebee ( Maya the bee ?
) : On the show , Nahoul has expressed radical views .
He has stated such things as : " We will liberate Al-Aqsa from the filth of the criminal Jews , " [ 27 ] and " We will go on Jihad when we grow up .
" [ 27 ] In episode 204 , Nahoul visits the zoo where streaks of cruelty become apparent for the ( first ?
) time .
Nahoul states : " The cats here are asleep - the poor , wretched , imprisoned cats .
I feel like abusing them .
This cat is asleep .
I feel like attacking it .
" [ 28 ] Nahoul then proceeds to swing cats by their tails and throw them around their cage [ 28 ] .And Assoud the rabbit ( Bugs Bunny ) : Before Nahoul 's death , Assoud lived in Lebanon ; he returned " in order to return to the homeland and liberate it .
" [ 30 ] On his deathbed , he instructs Palestinian children that they must fight and die to liberate Haifa , Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities .
[ 32 ] [ 33 ] Assoud hinted in episode 302 that he would be replaced by a tiger when he was martyred.And it continues : Nassur , a brown bear , is the current co-host of Tomorrow 's Pioneers .
He claims to have come to the Gaza Strip to become one of the mujahideen and to defend the children of Palestine ( although he gives evidence that he may have come from Iran ) .
As such he has vowed in his debut episode on February 13 , 2009 , to " join the 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades where his activities will include such things as " wag [ ing ] Jihad " and " carry [ ing ] a gun .
" Needless to say , Disney was " not amused " : The Disney corporation initially had no public statement on the use of Mickey Mouse 's image in the Farfour character ; Disney CEO Robert Iger later said , " We were appalled by the use of our character to disseminate that kind of message .
" He explained the initial quiet by saying , " I just did n't think it would have any effect... I think it should have been obvious how the company felt about the subject .
" [ 24 ] .and73-year-old Diane Disney Miller , Mickey Mouse creator Walt Disney 's last surviving child , commented to the press that , " What we 're dealing with here is pure evil and you ca n't ignore that .
" She further commented that , " It 's not just [ about ] Mickey , it 's [ about ] indoctrinating children like this , teaching them to be evil .
The world loves children , and this is just going against the grain of humanity .
" [ 82 ] Oh , and it is n't only Hamas that is doing that : Other Palestinian children 's programs have allegedly used the Mickey Mouse image to incite radical activities .
According to the Anti-Defamation League , a 1998 episode of the program The Children 's Club on official Palestinian Authority television had a " Mickey Mouse " -type figure amidst children praising suicide attacks against Israelis .
[ 5 ] andIn September 2008 , Fatah also began broadcasting a competing show targeting children on the Official PA TV network .
This program also features use of Mickey and Minnie Mouse .
[ 38 ] Sadly , the misuse of cartoon characters continues , and despite the fact that copyright gets extended .
The honest people care about copyrights , and they are the ones who are onerously limited in their access to culture , while those who indoctrinate hatred do n't give two hoots ( well , they do periodically change the character to move on to offend another show character ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, let's see.
Seems like this has already been done [wikipedia.org], courtesy of Hamas, and continues.
Remember Farfour (~= Mickey Mouse) [Wikipedia]:On the show, Farfour has expressed radical views.
He has stated such things as: "You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists"[19] and "We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness, and liberate Jerusalem, God willing, liberate Iraq, God willing, and liberate all the countries of the Muslims invaded by the murderers.
"[18][19] In episode 103, he simulates shooting an AK-47 and throwing grenades.
[4][20]And Nahoul, the bumblebee (Maya the bee?
):On the show, Nahoul has expressed radical views.
He has stated such things as: "We will liberate Al-Aqsa from the filth of the criminal Jews,"[27] and "We will go on Jihad when we grow up.
"[27] In episode 204, Nahoul visits the zoo where streaks of cruelty become apparent for the (first?
) time.
Nahoul states: "The cats here are asleep - the poor, wretched, imprisoned cats.
I feel like abusing them.
This cat is asleep.
I feel like attacking it.
" [28] Nahoul then proceeds to swing cats by their tails and throw them around their cage[28].And Assoud the rabbit (Bugs Bunny):Before Nahoul's death, Assoud lived in Lebanon; he returned "in order to return to the homeland and liberate it.
"[30] On his deathbed, he instructs Palestinian children that they must fight and die to liberate Haifa, Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities.
[32][33] Assoud hinted in episode 302 that he would be replaced by a tiger when he was martyred.And it continues:Nassur, a brown bear, is the current co-host of Tomorrow's Pioneers.
He claims to have come to the Gaza Strip to become one of the mujahideen and to defend the children of Palestine (although he gives evidence that he may have come from Iran).
As such he has vowed in his debut episode on February 13, 2009, to "join the 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades where his activities will include such things as "wag[ing] Jihad" and "carry[ing] a gun.
"Needless to say, Disney was "not amused":The Disney corporation initially had no public statement on the use of Mickey Mouse's image in the Farfour character; Disney CEO Robert Iger later said, "We were appalled by the use of our character to disseminate that kind of message.
" He explained the initial quiet by saying, "I just didn't think it would have any effect... I think it should have been obvious how the company felt about the subject.
" [24].and73-year-old Diane Disney Miller, Mickey Mouse creator Walt Disney's last surviving child, commented to the press that, "What we're dealing with here is pure evil and you can't ignore that.
" She further commented that, "It's not just [about] Mickey, it's [about] indoctrinating children like this, teaching them to be evil.
The world loves children, and this is just going against the grain of humanity.
"[82]Oh, and it isn't only Hamas that is doing that:Other Palestinian children's programs have allegedly used the Mickey Mouse image to incite radical activities.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, a 1998 episode of the program The Children's Club on official Palestinian Authority television had a "Mickey Mouse"-type figure amidst children praising suicide attacks against Israelis.
[5]andIn September 2008, Fatah also began broadcasting a competing show targeting children on the Official PA TV network.
This program also features use of Mickey and Minnie Mouse.
[38]Sadly, the misuse of cartoon characters continues, and despite the fact that copyright gets extended.
The honest people care about copyrights, and they are the ones who are onerously limited in their access to culture, while those who indoctrinate hatred don't give two hoots (well, they do periodically change the character to move on to offend another show character).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829096</id>
	<title>Sherlock Holmes on Project Gutenberg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264018680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a69" title="gutenberg.org" rel="nofollow">Sherlock Holmes on Project Gutenberg</a> [gutenberg.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sherlock Holmes on Project Gutenberg [ gutenberg.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sherlock Holmes on Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830532</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263993420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you support that argument? Think of it this way; the copyright laws prevent anyone else from creating derivative works based on something that has already been created. Therefore, you can't piggyback your work on someone else's, you have to create something entirely new.</p><p>Would Phillip Marlowe exist if that author had been able to just write yet another Holmes-derived story?</p><p>Would "The Munsters" have existed if CBS could have just copied "The Addams Family"?</p><p>Derivative works can be very creative, but IMO having to create something entirely new is more creative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you support that argument ?
Think of it this way ; the copyright laws prevent anyone else from creating derivative works based on something that has already been created .
Therefore , you ca n't piggyback your work on someone else 's , you have to create something entirely new.Would Phillip Marlowe exist if that author had been able to just write yet another Holmes-derived story ? Would " The Munsters " have existed if CBS could have just copied " The Addams Family " ? Derivative works can be very creative , but IMO having to create something entirely new is more creative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you support that argument?
Think of it this way; the copyright laws prevent anyone else from creating derivative works based on something that has already been created.
Therefore, you can't piggyback your work on someone else's, you have to create something entirely new.Would Phillip Marlowe exist if that author had been able to just write yet another Holmes-derived story?Would "The Munsters" have existed if CBS could have just copied "The Addams Family"?Derivative works can be very creative, but IMO having to create something entirely new is more creative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829104</id>
	<title>So much for public domain...</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1264018800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you create copyright works in country A, and when that expires you then renew your copyright in country B? After that expires will they just transfer it yet again to another country and extend it yet again? Since all of these countries have [evil] trade treaties copyright in one is copyright in all....</p><p>Copyright is seriously out of control and I point the finger squarely at the US for creating this greedy flawed system...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you create copyright works in country A , and when that expires you then renew your copyright in country B ?
After that expires will they just transfer it yet again to another country and extend it yet again ?
Since all of these countries have [ evil ] trade treaties copyright in one is copyright in all....Copyright is seriously out of control and I point the finger squarely at the US for creating this greedy flawed system.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you create copyright works in country A, and when that expires you then renew your copyright in country B?
After that expires will they just transfer it yet again to another country and extend it yet again?
Since all of these countries have [evil] trade treaties copyright in one is copyright in all....Copyright is seriously out of control and I point the finger squarely at the US for creating this greedy flawed system...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829610</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative works, completely undermining the whole arguement for copyright in the first place.</p></div><p>I'd point out that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is also very dead, which probably prevents him from making new creative works more than a lack of financial incentive, but I agree with you in principle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you can milk something infinately , it removes all incentive to create new creative works , completely undermining the whole arguement for copyright in the first place.I 'd point out that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is also very dead , which probably prevents him from making new creative works more than a lack of financial incentive , but I agree with you in principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative works, completely undermining the whole arguement for copyright in the first place.I'd point out that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is also very dead, which probably prevents him from making new creative works more than a lack of financial incentive, but I agree with you in principle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833256</id>
	<title>Re:Think like a politician</title>
	<author>JacksBrokenCode</author>
	<datestamp>1264008180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If copyright is extended jobs are lost. You don't need to hire people to create new stuff because you can still earn money from the ancient stuff.</p></div><p>Perhaps you won't be hiring super creative types to make new properties, but your competitors will.</p><p>Creativity is not a zero-sum game...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If copyright is extended jobs are lost .
You do n't need to hire people to create new stuff because you can still earn money from the ancient stuff.Perhaps you wo n't be hiring super creative types to make new properties , but your competitors will.Creativity is not a zero-sum game.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If copyright is extended jobs are lost.
You don't need to hire people to create new stuff because you can still earn money from the ancient stuff.Perhaps you won't be hiring super creative types to make new properties, but your competitors will.Creativity is not a zero-sum game...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829770</id>
	<title>Re:So much for public domain...</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1263984300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, cause the Berne Convention came first (in the sense of copyrights lasting longer than the author).</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne\_Convention\_for\_the\_Protection\_of\_Literary\_and\_Artistic\_Works" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne\_Convention\_for\_the\_Protection\_of\_Literary\_and\_Artistic\_Works</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , cause the Berne Convention came first ( in the sense of copyrights lasting longer than the author ) .http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne \ _Convention \ _for \ _the \ _Protection \ _of \ _Literary \ _and \ _Artistic \ _Works [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, cause the Berne Convention came first (in the sense of copyrights lasting longer than the author).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne\_Convention\_for\_the\_Protection\_of\_Literary\_and\_Artistic\_Works [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831152</id>
	<title>Re:Disney</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263999360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I support that idea. Down with the rodent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I support that idea .
Down with the rodent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I support that idea.
Down with the rodent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829058</id>
	<title>MOD ME DOWN, WASTE A MOD POINT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264018080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hi, i recently read about sex with insects and fine it fasinated me.i went to a pet store and bought crickets. taking them home i put some in a jar and lowered it over my cock and balls. the sensation of them crawling all over was overwhelming and i orgasmed quickly. is this normal???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hi , i recently read about sex with insects and fine it fasinated me.i went to a pet store and bought crickets .
taking them home i put some in a jar and lowered it over my cock and balls .
the sensation of them crawling all over was overwhelming and i orgasmed quickly .
is this normal ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hi, i recently read about sex with insects and fine it fasinated me.i went to a pet store and bought crickets.
taking them home i put some in a jar and lowered it over my cock and balls.
the sensation of them crawling all over was overwhelming and i orgasmed quickly.
is this normal??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264019940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative works, completely undermining the whole arguement for copyright in the first place. how does this simple fact fail with law makers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you can milk something infinately , it removes all incentive to create new creative works , completely undermining the whole arguement for copyright in the first place .
how does this simple fact fail with law makers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative works, completely undermining the whole arguement for copyright in the first place.
how does this simple fact fail with law makers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830900</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1263997560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Because the law doesn't say copyrights are eternal. Therefore you cannot milk something indefinitely.<br></i></p><p>If I passed a law that said copyrights now last 10^100 years our cowards on the Supreme Court would still say it was constitutional because it fit the definition of 'limited time'. even if that time would be some time after the heat death of the freaking universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the law does n't say copyrights are eternal .
Therefore you can not milk something indefinitely.If I passed a law that said copyrights now last 10 ^ 100 years our cowards on the Supreme Court would still say it was constitutional because it fit the definition of 'limited time' .
even if that time would be some time after the heat death of the freaking universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the law doesn't say copyrights are eternal.
Therefore you cannot milk something indefinitely.If I passed a law that said copyrights now last 10^100 years our cowards on the Supreme Court would still say it was constitutional because it fit the definition of 'limited time'.
even if that time would be some time after the heat death of the freaking universe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829846</id>
	<title>Re:Time to revert back to the 1790-1922 laws</title>
	<author>IndieKid</author>
	<datestamp>1263985260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oops, replied to the wrong post... see "Think Like a Politician" posted by Kriss below.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oops , replied to the wrong post... see " Think Like a Politician " posted by Kriss below .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oops, replied to the wrong post... see "Think Like a Politician" posted by Kriss below.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30836170</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264019400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Basically, nobody wants to give up rights to it because they can make money from it.</p></div></blockquote><p>No shit, Sherlock.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , nobody wants to give up rights to it because they can make money from it.No shit , Sherlock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, nobody wants to give up rights to it because they can make money from it.No shit, Sherlock.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832440</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1264005360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In some countries, copyrights include "moral rights", which are inalienable, but (IIRC) die with the author. Most often, the phrase is included in book written by pseudonymous authors.</p><p>Suppose a US publisher obtained the rights to republish John LeCarr&#233;'s novels. If not specifically bound by contract, the publisher could print, say "The Spy who came in from the Cold, by David Cornwall", and David Cornwall would have little recourse. In other places in the world, David Cornwall could claim that he wants to be known as "John LeCarr&#233;", and his moral rights to be known by a pseudonym would outweigh inexpertly drafted contracts.</p><p>Monty Python's flying circus was adapted for American audiences in the 1970s by ABC. The adaptation was inexpert and missed the Pythonesque humor. The members of the Python troupe sued ABC for "trademark dilution", and failed. In a climate of "moral rights", Monty Python would have a strong case, but in the US, they had to go through the Lanham Act. (People who hadn't seen the Python show, but had heard that it was good, would now judge the Pythons on the basis of a bowdlerized import.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In some countries , copyrights include " moral rights " , which are inalienable , but ( IIRC ) die with the author .
Most often , the phrase is included in book written by pseudonymous authors.Suppose a US publisher obtained the rights to republish John LeCarr   's novels .
If not specifically bound by contract , the publisher could print , say " The Spy who came in from the Cold , by David Cornwall " , and David Cornwall would have little recourse .
In other places in the world , David Cornwall could claim that he wants to be known as " John LeCarr   " , and his moral rights to be known by a pseudonym would outweigh inexpertly drafted contracts.Monty Python 's flying circus was adapted for American audiences in the 1970s by ABC .
The adaptation was inexpert and missed the Pythonesque humor .
The members of the Python troupe sued ABC for " trademark dilution " , and failed .
In a climate of " moral rights " , Monty Python would have a strong case , but in the US , they had to go through the Lanham Act .
( People who had n't seen the Python show , but had heard that it was good , would now judge the Pythons on the basis of a bowdlerized import .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In some countries, copyrights include "moral rights", which are inalienable, but (IIRC) die with the author.
Most often, the phrase is included in book written by pseudonymous authors.Suppose a US publisher obtained the rights to republish John LeCarré's novels.
If not specifically bound by contract, the publisher could print, say "The Spy who came in from the Cold, by David Cornwall", and David Cornwall would have little recourse.
In other places in the world, David Cornwall could claim that he wants to be known as "John LeCarré", and his moral rights to be known by a pseudonym would outweigh inexpertly drafted contracts.Monty Python's flying circus was adapted for American audiences in the 1970s by ABC.
The adaptation was inexpert and missed the Pythonesque humor.
The members of the Python troupe sued ABC for "trademark dilution", and failed.
In a climate of "moral rights", Monty Python would have a strong case, but in the US, they had to go through the Lanham Act.
(People who hadn't seen the Python show, but had heard that it was good, would now judge the Pythons on the basis of a bowdlerized import.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832280</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>3vi1</author>
	<datestamp>1264004700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://disneychange.ytmnd.com/" title="ytmnd.com">Disney, turning out new material</a> [ytmnd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney , turning out new material [ ytmnd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney, turning out new material [ytmnd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829502</id>
	<title>Get rid of copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263981060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need to get rid of copyright. The endless greed of parasites who no longer make any real contribution to society disgusts me. I published my own stuff under Creative Commons (Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike).

I hope that in a generation or two things will be different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to get rid of copyright .
The endless greed of parasites who no longer make any real contribution to society disgusts me .
I published my own stuff under Creative Commons ( Attribution , Non-Commercial , Share-Alike ) .
I hope that in a generation or two things will be different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to get rid of copyright.
The endless greed of parasites who no longer make any real contribution to society disgusts me.
I published my own stuff under Creative Commons (Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike).
I hope that in a generation or two things will be different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831290</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1264000200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, but what if he returns from the grave to write another Sherlock Holmes book (and consume some braaaaiiiinnnns)?  We need to protect the copyrights of zombie authors!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , but what if he returns from the grave to write another Sherlock Holmes book ( and consume some braaaaiiiinnnns ) ?
We need to protect the copyrights of zombie authors !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, but what if he returns from the grave to write another Sherlock Holmes book (and consume some braaaaiiiinnnns)?
We need to protect the copyrights of zombie authors!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829482</id>
	<title>No shit, Sherlock?</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1263980820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That Americanism says it all...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That Americanism says it all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Americanism says it all...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829734</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1263983820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>actually i wasn't touching on the meaning of copyright at all, but what it was supposed to achieve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>actually i was n't touching on the meaning of copyright at all , but what it was supposed to achieve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually i wasn't touching on the meaning of copyright at all, but what it was supposed to achieve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829944</id>
	<title>Jeremy Brett series is a good example</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1263986340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to wonder if the 1980s Granada series of Holmes adaptations starring Jeremy Brett, the definitive Holmes adaptations to myself and many others, could've been made had the copyright not lapsed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to wonder if the 1980s Granada series of Holmes adaptations starring Jeremy Brett , the definitive Holmes adaptations to myself and many others , could 've been made had the copyright not lapsed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to wonder if the 1980s Granada series of Holmes adaptations starring Jeremy Brett, the definitive Holmes adaptations to myself and many others, could've been made had the copyright not lapsed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830778</id>
	<title>Re:So much for public domain...</title>
	<author>Chief Camel Breeder</author>
	<datestamp>1263996600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought, perhaps wrongly, that the copyright was attached to a particular edition of a book. Therefore, if a book was published separately in the UK and in the USA, I could make a facsimile of the British edition and distribute that in the USA while the American edition was still in copyright. Correct? Wrong? Different rules for images of the pages vs OCR'd text?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought , perhaps wrongly , that the copyright was attached to a particular edition of a book .
Therefore , if a book was published separately in the UK and in the USA , I could make a facsimile of the British edition and distribute that in the USA while the American edition was still in copyright .
Correct ? Wrong ?
Different rules for images of the pages vs OCR 'd text ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought, perhaps wrongly, that the copyright was attached to a particular edition of a book.
Therefore, if a book was published separately in the UK and in the USA, I could make a facsimile of the British edition and distribute that in the USA while the American edition was still in copyright.
Correct? Wrong?
Different rules for images of the pages vs OCR'd text?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829336</id>
	<title>"Really, sir?"</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1263978720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Yes, really, Watson. I'm sure the Traveler will allow us the use of his machine."</p><p>"Is there no other way, sir? This seems most excessive..." Watson trailed off, fully aware of the futility in trying to sway Holmes from his conviction. Perhaps Holmes is right. Nip this in the bud while the opportunity still remained.</p><p>"Sir, how do you suggest we approach this matter? Surely you cannot expect to drop in from a century in the future and expect tea and scones? The matter of that rather scary looking contraption you wish to employ needs to be addressed as well, sir."</p><p>"Quite simple, Watson. I intend that we should mount this "contraption", as you put it, and set the controls to precisely 19 feet in elevation, the corner of Glasshouse and Regent, on the morning of August 16 in the year 1974. Then return." Holmes removed his spectacles and gave them a quick rubbing with the bottom edge of his smoking vest, closely watching Watson from the corner of his eye. The smoke from his pipe cloaked his gaze from Watson.</p><p>Watson's eyes glazed slightly as he took in what Holmes had just said. Then they widened. Then they widened more.</p><p>"You cannot be serious, sir! You mean to crush Ms. Nina under that contraption?" Watson said, his astonishment tinged with an obvious air of distaste. "Sir, I implore you. Have we really come to this? Time traveling assassins?"</p><p>Holmes, more tired then he had ever been in his life, gave Watson a sad, almost regretful smile. "If we are ever to live the life Arthur intended, to solve the riddles that require solving, to live up to our potential, she must die. Then all will be right in the world of Sir Doyle."</p><p>Watson, always the one to find some solace in the worst of circumstances, flashed Holmes a quick grin of highly polished teeth. "Can I bring a camera?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yes , really , Watson .
I 'm sure the Traveler will allow us the use of his machine .
" " Is there no other way , sir ?
This seems most excessive... " Watson trailed off , fully aware of the futility in trying to sway Holmes from his conviction .
Perhaps Holmes is right .
Nip this in the bud while the opportunity still remained .
" Sir , how do you suggest we approach this matter ?
Surely you can not expect to drop in from a century in the future and expect tea and scones ?
The matter of that rather scary looking contraption you wish to employ needs to be addressed as well , sir .
" " Quite simple , Watson .
I intend that we should mount this " contraption " , as you put it , and set the controls to precisely 19 feet in elevation , the corner of Glasshouse and Regent , on the morning of August 16 in the year 1974 .
Then return .
" Holmes removed his spectacles and gave them a quick rubbing with the bottom edge of his smoking vest , closely watching Watson from the corner of his eye .
The smoke from his pipe cloaked his gaze from Watson.Watson 's eyes glazed slightly as he took in what Holmes had just said .
Then they widened .
Then they widened more .
" You can not be serious , sir !
You mean to crush Ms. Nina under that contraption ?
" Watson said , his astonishment tinged with an obvious air of distaste .
" Sir , I implore you .
Have we really come to this ?
Time traveling assassins ?
" Holmes , more tired then he had ever been in his life , gave Watson a sad , almost regretful smile .
" If we are ever to live the life Arthur intended , to solve the riddles that require solving , to live up to our potential , she must die .
Then all will be right in the world of Sir Doyle .
" Watson , always the one to find some solace in the worst of circumstances , flashed Holmes a quick grin of highly polished teeth .
" Can I bring a camera ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yes, really, Watson.
I'm sure the Traveler will allow us the use of his machine.
""Is there no other way, sir?
This seems most excessive..." Watson trailed off, fully aware of the futility in trying to sway Holmes from his conviction.
Perhaps Holmes is right.
Nip this in the bud while the opportunity still remained.
"Sir, how do you suggest we approach this matter?
Surely you cannot expect to drop in from a century in the future and expect tea and scones?
The matter of that rather scary looking contraption you wish to employ needs to be addressed as well, sir.
""Quite simple, Watson.
I intend that we should mount this "contraption", as you put it, and set the controls to precisely 19 feet in elevation, the corner of Glasshouse and Regent, on the morning of August 16 in the year 1974.
Then return.
" Holmes removed his spectacles and gave them a quick rubbing with the bottom edge of his smoking vest, closely watching Watson from the corner of his eye.
The smoke from his pipe cloaked his gaze from Watson.Watson's eyes glazed slightly as he took in what Holmes had just said.
Then they widened.
Then they widened more.
"You cannot be serious, sir!
You mean to crush Ms. Nina under that contraption?
" Watson said, his astonishment tinged with an obvious air of distaste.
"Sir, I implore you.
Have we really come to this?
Time traveling assassins?
"Holmes, more tired then he had ever been in his life, gave Watson a sad, almost regretful smile.
"If we are ever to live the life Arthur intended, to solve the riddles that require solving, to live up to our potential, she must die.
Then all will be right in the world of Sir Doyle.
"Watson, always the one to find some solace in the worst of circumstances, flashed Holmes a quick grin of highly polished teeth.
"Can I bring a camera?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829312</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1263978360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Answer: Lobbyists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Answer : Lobbyists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Answer: Lobbyists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829102</id>
	<title>Ah, greed</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1264018740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mr. Lellenberg said that Sherlock Holmes remains under copyright protection in the United States through 2023, and that any new properties involving the detective &ldquo;definitely should&rdquo; be licensed by the Conan Doyle estate. Asked about a recent Red Bull television commercial that features a cartoon Holmes and Watson, Mr. Lellenberg said he had not seen it. &ldquo;Very interesting,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;News to me.&rdquo;</p></div><p>He then twirled his mustache, petted the Persian cat on his lap, raised an eyebrow, tilted his head, rubbed his hands together, and said: <i>"release the lawyers!"</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Lellenberg said that Sherlock Holmes remains under copyright protection in the United States through 2023 , and that any new properties involving the detective    definitely should    be licensed by the Conan Doyle estate .
Asked about a recent Red Bull television commercial that features a cartoon Holmes and Watson , Mr. Lellenberg said he had not seen it .
   Very interesting ,    he said .
   News to me.    He then twirled his mustache , petted the Persian cat on his lap , raised an eyebrow , tilted his head , rubbed his hands together , and said : " release the lawyers !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Lellenberg said that Sherlock Holmes remains under copyright protection in the United States through 2023, and that any new properties involving the detective “definitely should” be licensed by the Conan Doyle estate.
Asked about a recent Red Bull television commercial that features a cartoon Holmes and Watson, Mr. Lellenberg said he had not seen it.
“Very interesting,” he said.
“News to me.”He then twirled his mustache, petted the Persian cat on his lap, raised an eyebrow, tilted his head, rubbed his hands together, and said: "release the lawyers!
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829420</id>
	<title>Re:What a crock</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1263980100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about:  Copyright lasts 30 years.<br> <br>

Why all this 'x after death, or y if z' nonsense?  The heirs receive the benefit of the money the creator makes from the work, after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about : Copyright lasts 30 years .
Why all this 'x after death , or y if z ' nonsense ?
The heirs receive the benefit of the money the creator makes from the work , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about:  Copyright lasts 30 years.
Why all this 'x after death, or y if z' nonsense?
The heirs receive the benefit of the money the creator makes from the work, after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834710</id>
	<title>Re:What a crock</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1264013580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The only reason to extend after the death is to ensure that the husband/wife receives a pension and the children are supported until they can start working by themselves.</i> <br> <br>Why should the spouse/children of authors get such special treatment in the first place?<br> <br> <i>For the first part, 70 years is most likely a bit excessive for most cases</i> <br> <br>If said spouse is young enough for 70 years not to be excessive he or she is probably also young enough to get a job. As might be the case for many other "Stay at Homes" who were widowed.<br> <br> <i>How about: lifetime of spouse or until the youngest child is 25 years, whichever is greater. This may be difficult to administer, in that case, just make it 25 years after death and you have covered it in 95\% of all cases.</i> <br> <br>Actually anything which relates to the date of death of the author is difficult to administer. Even without such complexities as several authors collaberating and use of psudonyms.<br>The only easy to administer system one which relates to first publication/performance/broadcast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason to extend after the death is to ensure that the husband/wife receives a pension and the children are supported until they can start working by themselves .
Why should the spouse/children of authors get such special treatment in the first place ?
For the first part , 70 years is most likely a bit excessive for most cases If said spouse is young enough for 70 years not to be excessive he or she is probably also young enough to get a job .
As might be the case for many other " Stay at Homes " who were widowed .
How about : lifetime of spouse or until the youngest child is 25 years , whichever is greater .
This may be difficult to administer , in that case , just make it 25 years after death and you have covered it in 95 \ % of all cases .
Actually anything which relates to the date of death of the author is difficult to administer .
Even without such complexities as several authors collaberating and use of psudonyms.The only easy to administer system one which relates to first publication/performance/broadcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason to extend after the death is to ensure that the husband/wife receives a pension and the children are supported until they can start working by themselves.
Why should the spouse/children of authors get such special treatment in the first place?
For the first part, 70 years is most likely a bit excessive for most cases  If said spouse is young enough for 70 years not to be excessive he or she is probably also young enough to get a job.
As might be the case for many other "Stay at Homes" who were widowed.
How about: lifetime of spouse or until the youngest child is 25 years, whichever is greater.
This may be difficult to administer, in that case, just make it 25 years after death and you have covered it in 95\% of all cases.
Actually anything which relates to the date of death of the author is difficult to administer.
Even without such complexities as several authors collaberating and use of psudonyms.The only easy to administer system one which relates to first publication/performance/broadcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829466</id>
	<title>Re:Well well...</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1263980640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownership</p><p>Watson, I seem not to have aged for 80 years.  Watson.</p><p>Watson the game has something to do with feet.  There is a podiatrist in the hall.  He is here to put opium on his</p><p>feet.  Please let him in.  His squeaking shoe is interfering with my violin.  Have you found the jewel in my</p><p>perique.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownershipWatson , I seem not to have aged for 80 years .
Watson.Watson the game has something to do with feet .
There is a podiatrist in the hall .
He is here to put opium on hisfeet .
Please let him in .
His squeaking shoe is interfering with my violin .
Have you found the jewel in myperique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownershipWatson, I seem not to have aged for 80 years.
Watson.Watson the game has something to do with feet.
There is a podiatrist in the hall.
He is here to put opium on hisfeet.
Please let him in.
His squeaking shoe is interfering with my violin.
Have you found the jewel in myperique.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829142</id>
	<title>where does the 2023 date come from?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264019220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article doesn't explain precisely why it's still under copyright, except that it was renewed in 1981 after falling into the public domain, as permitted by the Copyright Act of 1976. But why hasn't it fallen back into the public domain again? Looking through <a href="http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm" title="cornell.edu">this chart</a> [cornell.edu], I can't find any combination of circumstances that would allow an 1887 work, whose author died in 1930, to remain in copyright until 2023.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does n't explain precisely why it 's still under copyright , except that it was renewed in 1981 after falling into the public domain , as permitted by the Copyright Act of 1976 .
But why has n't it fallen back into the public domain again ?
Looking through this chart [ cornell.edu ] , I ca n't find any combination of circumstances that would allow an 1887 work , whose author died in 1930 , to remain in copyright until 2023 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article doesn't explain precisely why it's still under copyright, except that it was renewed in 1981 after falling into the public domain, as permitted by the Copyright Act of 1976.
But why hasn't it fallen back into the public domain again?
Looking through this chart [cornell.edu], I can't find any combination of circumstances that would allow an 1887 work, whose author died in 1930, to remain in copyright until 2023.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829840</id>
	<title>Re:Time to revert back to the 1790-1922 laws</title>
	<author>IndieKid</author>
	<datestamp>1263985200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That only works if the IP you're planning on exporting isn't already public domain in the countries you plan on exporting to.</p><p>In this instance the IP is public domain in the UK (as I understand it) and you would think the UK would probably be one of the largest markets for Sherlock Holmes stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That only works if the IP you 're planning on exporting is n't already public domain in the countries you plan on exporting to.In this instance the IP is public domain in the UK ( as I understand it ) and you would think the UK would probably be one of the largest markets for Sherlock Holmes stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That only works if the IP you're planning on exporting isn't already public domain in the countries you plan on exporting to.In this instance the IP is public domain in the UK (as I understand it) and you would think the UK would probably be one of the largest markets for Sherlock Holmes stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831240</id>
	<title>Re:Time to revert back to the 1790-1922 laws</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1263999900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to see a study done on books, music, movies, etc that graphs out how much money they make each year after their release.  My guess is that 95\% (if not more) of the money is made in the first 5 years.  After that, money made on most works likely plummets each year until it brings in a bare trickle of funds.  Yes, some works (e.g. the original Star Wars movies) continue to make tons of cash decades after they were released, but I'm betting those are few and far between.  We definitely shouldn't shape copyright law to protect 2\% of works which are still making money thus locking the 98\% of works which aren't from going into the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see a study done on books , music , movies , etc that graphs out how much money they make each year after their release .
My guess is that 95 \ % ( if not more ) of the money is made in the first 5 years .
After that , money made on most works likely plummets each year until it brings in a bare trickle of funds .
Yes , some works ( e.g .
the original Star Wars movies ) continue to make tons of cash decades after they were released , but I 'm betting those are few and far between .
We definitely should n't shape copyright law to protect 2 \ % of works which are still making money thus locking the 98 \ % of works which are n't from going into the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see a study done on books, music, movies, etc that graphs out how much money they make each year after their release.
My guess is that 95\% (if not more) of the money is made in the first 5 years.
After that, money made on most works likely plummets each year until it brings in a bare trickle of funds.
Yes, some works (e.g.
the original Star Wars movies) continue to make tons of cash decades after they were released, but I'm betting those are few and far between.
We definitely shouldn't shape copyright law to protect 2\% of works which are still making money thus locking the 98\% of works which aren't from going into the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831712</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1264002060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting fences in imaginationland should be against human rights. You aren't just avoiding working on some particular character or environment, but in anything similar "enough". And you could had a new/good idea about something existing already.

</p><p>Derivative works are also creative, the kind of creativity that don't need so much the world building and background explaining as was being done in the original work and focus in the story itself, but it still could be something great, maybe even greater than the original work, or enrich it greatly (and even promote more people being interested in the original work/author/etc).

</p><p>An example could be i.e. how the Foundation universe was further enriched or completed by works of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation\_series#Other\_authors" title="wikipedia.org">other great sci-fi writers</a> [wikipedia.org]. This cases were approved by the copyright holders, but the idea could had being expanded a lot more if no restriction to that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting fences in imaginationland should be against human rights .
You are n't just avoiding working on some particular character or environment , but in anything similar " enough " .
And you could had a new/good idea about something existing already .
Derivative works are also creative , the kind of creativity that do n't need so much the world building and background explaining as was being done in the original work and focus in the story itself , but it still could be something great , maybe even greater than the original work , or enrich it greatly ( and even promote more people being interested in the original work/author/etc ) .
An example could be i.e .
how the Foundation universe was further enriched or completed by works of other great sci-fi writers [ wikipedia.org ] .
This cases were approved by the copyright holders , but the idea could had being expanded a lot more if no restriction to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting fences in imaginationland should be against human rights.
You aren't just avoiding working on some particular character or environment, but in anything similar "enough".
And you could had a new/good idea about something existing already.
Derivative works are also creative, the kind of creativity that don't need so much the world building and background explaining as was being done in the original work and focus in the story itself, but it still could be something great, maybe even greater than the original work, or enrich it greatly (and even promote more people being interested in the original work/author/etc).
An example could be i.e.
how the Foundation universe was further enriched or completed by works of other great sci-fi writers [wikipedia.org].
This cases were approved by the copyright holders, but the idea could had being expanded a lot more if no restriction to that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829880</id>
	<title>Re:Disney</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1263985680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I hate is arguments that if the copyright is allowed to lapse that anyone will be able to create whatever derivative they want and sell them as legit. I've had educated people try to tell my that copyright is keeping Mickey Mouse porn from being sold at Walmart. Talk about a basic misunderstanding. This is the exact bullshit that lets them get away with extending copyrights over and over.

I still think the easiest system is to charge a yearly fee that starts off at $1 for the first year and doubles each year afterward. Anyone that doesn't bother to register doesn't want copyright protection. When the cost exceeds the benefit people will let the copyright lapse. I think most material would let copyright lapse within 10-20 years then. Maybe provide an extra time of protection against commercial use if you wanted to be nice - allowing first just personal/non-profit use. One of the problems with patents for example is that companies are willing to wait for your protection to expire and then will use your idea with no renumeration - that IS a problem. I'd also block copyright for any material that uses DRM and hasn't filed a full raw copy with the LoC that can be obtained by the public after the copyright lapses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I hate is arguments that if the copyright is allowed to lapse that anyone will be able to create whatever derivative they want and sell them as legit .
I 've had educated people try to tell my that copyright is keeping Mickey Mouse porn from being sold at Walmart .
Talk about a basic misunderstanding .
This is the exact bullshit that lets them get away with extending copyrights over and over .
I still think the easiest system is to charge a yearly fee that starts off at $ 1 for the first year and doubles each year afterward .
Anyone that does n't bother to register does n't want copyright protection .
When the cost exceeds the benefit people will let the copyright lapse .
I think most material would let copyright lapse within 10-20 years then .
Maybe provide an extra time of protection against commercial use if you wanted to be nice - allowing first just personal/non-profit use .
One of the problems with patents for example is that companies are willing to wait for your protection to expire and then will use your idea with no renumeration - that IS a problem .
I 'd also block copyright for any material that uses DRM and has n't filed a full raw copy with the LoC that can be obtained by the public after the copyright lapses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I hate is arguments that if the copyright is allowed to lapse that anyone will be able to create whatever derivative they want and sell them as legit.
I've had educated people try to tell my that copyright is keeping Mickey Mouse porn from being sold at Walmart.
Talk about a basic misunderstanding.
This is the exact bullshit that lets them get away with extending copyrights over and over.
I still think the easiest system is to charge a yearly fee that starts off at $1 for the first year and doubles each year afterward.
Anyone that doesn't bother to register doesn't want copyright protection.
When the cost exceeds the benefit people will let the copyright lapse.
I think most material would let copyright lapse within 10-20 years then.
Maybe provide an extra time of protection against commercial use if you wanted to be nice - allowing first just personal/non-profit use.
One of the problems with patents for example is that companies are willing to wait for your protection to expire and then will use your idea with no renumeration - that IS a problem.
I'd also block copyright for any material that uses DRM and hasn't filed a full raw copy with the LoC that can be obtained by the public after the copyright lapses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829794</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263984660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Huh? Incentive for creative work was an argument for copyright?</p><p>No. It wasn&rsquo;t.</p></div><p>Yes it was.</p><p>The English Statute of Anne (1710) which predated the German grant of rights by nearly 85 years was in its own words enacted "for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
Incentive for creative work was an argument for copyright ? No .
It wasn    t.Yes it was.The English Statute of Anne ( 1710 ) which predated the German grant of rights by nearly 85 years was in its own words enacted " for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
Incentive for creative work was an argument for copyright?No.
It wasn’t.Yes it was.The English Statute of Anne (1710) which predated the German grant of rights by nearly 85 years was in its own words enacted "for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831230</id>
	<title>Wanna fix copyright?</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1263999780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IF you seriously want to fix copyright law why not start with this simple oath:</p><p>"I will not vote for a lawyer."<br>"I Will not vote for a Democrat"<br>"I will not vote for a Republican"<br>"I will not vote for a millionaire"</p><p>There problem solved, of course it requires the majority of people to take the oath... until then you get the government you deserve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IF you seriously want to fix copyright law why not start with this simple oath : " I will not vote for a lawyer .
" " I Will not vote for a Democrat " " I will not vote for a Republican " " I will not vote for a millionaire " There problem solved , of course it requires the majority of people to take the oath... until then you get the government you deserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IF you seriously want to fix copyright law why not start with this simple oath:"I will not vote for a lawyer.
""I Will not vote for a Democrat""I will not vote for a Republican""I will not vote for a millionaire"There problem solved, of course it requires the majority of people to take the oath... until then you get the government you deserve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834074</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that many of the members of the Supreme court don't understand scientific notation given that they<br><a href="http://volokh.com/2010/01/11/orthogonal-ooh/" title="volokh.com" rel="nofollow"> didn't know what the word "orthogonal" meant</a> [volokh.com]. Actually, they probably don't understand what heat death means either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that many of the members of the Supreme court do n't understand scientific notation given that they did n't know what the word " orthogonal " meant [ volokh.com ] .
Actually , they probably do n't understand what heat death means either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that many of the members of the Supreme court don't understand scientific notation given that they didn't know what the word "orthogonal" meant [volokh.com].
Actually, they probably don't understand what heat death means either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829222</id>
	<title>Think like a politician</title>
	<author>kriss</author>
	<datestamp>1264020300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you extend copyright: Some number of jobs (thousands, tens of thousands?) saved. IP exports generating US revenue. No real downside other than "What, you extended it again?" and no clear loser.</p><p>No wonder they extend it. They have no real case <i>against</i> doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you extend copyright : Some number of jobs ( thousands , tens of thousands ?
) saved .
IP exports generating US revenue .
No real downside other than " What , you extended it again ?
" and no clear loser.No wonder they extend it .
They have no real case against doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you extend copyright: Some number of jobs (thousands, tens of thousands?
) saved.
IP exports generating US revenue.
No real downside other than "What, you extended it again?
" and no clear loser.No wonder they extend it.
They have no real case against doing so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30836350</id>
	<title>Re:Time to revert back to the 1790-1922 laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264020120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live by the 14-14 law. That's where I make my cut point for whether I'll have no whim about torrenting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live by the 14-14 law .
That 's where I make my cut point for whether I 'll have no whim about torrenting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live by the 14-14 law.
That's where I make my cut point for whether I'll have no whim about torrenting it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829298</id>
	<title>Re:Think like a politician</title>
	<author>lattyware</author>
	<datestamp>1263978120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except it'll destroy our culture by having no public domain works, and less incentive to create new works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except it 'll destroy our culture by having no public domain works , and less incentive to create new works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except it'll destroy our culture by having no public domain works, and less incentive to create new works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831978</id>
	<title>the books are public domain aren't they?</title>
	<author>Punto</author>
	<datestamp>1264003260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got them all from Project Gutenberg. And kudos for getting the word "upon" into the summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got them all from Project Gutenberg .
And kudos for getting the word " upon " into the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got them all from Project Gutenberg.
And kudos for getting the word "upon" into the summary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830752</id>
	<title>Re:Think like a politician</title>
	<author>kriss</author>
	<datestamp>1263996360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think bigger. The US has a net export of culture (if I may call it that for the sake of the argument) - Disney is one rather marked example, but say Hollywood in general and ignore all other sources of culture for the time being. There's still a metric fuckwad of products out there in the world with Mickey and Donald images on them. Some are even produced by outfits in places where you actually pay royalties. Disney series - even old ones from the 80's - are broadcast in quite a few countries, also generating royalties. There's still an <i>interest</i> in the older Disney characters (yes, the more recent shows obviously wouldn't be free-for-all even if the <i>characters</i> went free-for-all, but nothing would stop other firms from making their own shows with the same characters)</p><p>This translates into a steady stream of revenue coming into the country from the rest of the world. Mickey &amp; Donald. Batman. Superman. Hell, even Popeye. Money translates, sooner or later, into jobs. Either directly in the corporate entity that owns the IP, or by the spending of said money. All this is somewhat tangible. The benefits of <i>not</i> extending copyright aren't.</p><p>You (I'm not a resident of the US myself) need to provide some good, solid arguments backed up by good, solid numbers in order to see any sort of change here. That's the tricky part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think bigger .
The US has a net export of culture ( if I may call it that for the sake of the argument ) - Disney is one rather marked example , but say Hollywood in general and ignore all other sources of culture for the time being .
There 's still a metric fuckwad of products out there in the world with Mickey and Donald images on them .
Some are even produced by outfits in places where you actually pay royalties .
Disney series - even old ones from the 80 's - are broadcast in quite a few countries , also generating royalties .
There 's still an interest in the older Disney characters ( yes , the more recent shows obviously would n't be free-for-all even if the characters went free-for-all , but nothing would stop other firms from making their own shows with the same characters ) This translates into a steady stream of revenue coming into the country from the rest of the world .
Mickey &amp; Donald .
Batman. Superman .
Hell , even Popeye .
Money translates , sooner or later , into jobs .
Either directly in the corporate entity that owns the IP , or by the spending of said money .
All this is somewhat tangible .
The benefits of not extending copyright are n't.You ( I 'm not a resident of the US myself ) need to provide some good , solid arguments backed up by good , solid numbers in order to see any sort of change here .
That 's the tricky part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think bigger.
The US has a net export of culture (if I may call it that for the sake of the argument) - Disney is one rather marked example, but say Hollywood in general and ignore all other sources of culture for the time being.
There's still a metric fuckwad of products out there in the world with Mickey and Donald images on them.
Some are even produced by outfits in places where you actually pay royalties.
Disney series - even old ones from the 80's - are broadcast in quite a few countries, also generating royalties.
There's still an interest in the older Disney characters (yes, the more recent shows obviously wouldn't be free-for-all even if the characters went free-for-all, but nothing would stop other firms from making their own shows with the same characters)This translates into a steady stream of revenue coming into the country from the rest of the world.
Mickey &amp; Donald.
Batman. Superman.
Hell, even Popeye.
Money translates, sooner or later, into jobs.
Either directly in the corporate entity that owns the IP, or by the spending of said money.
All this is somewhat tangible.
The benefits of not extending copyright aren't.You (I'm not a resident of the US myself) need to provide some good, solid arguments backed up by good, solid numbers in order to see any sort of change here.
That's the tricky part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829310</id>
	<title>Unspeakable Evil...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263978300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't Professor Moriarty put in charge of the U.S. Patent Office?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't Professor Moriarty put in charge of the U.S. Patent Office ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't Professor Moriarty put in charge of the U.S. Patent Office?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829518</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1263981420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the law doesn't say copyrights are eternal. Therefore you cannot milk something indefinitely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the law does n't say copyrights are eternal .
Therefore you can not milk something indefinitely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the law doesn't say copyrights are eternal.
Therefore you cannot milk something indefinitely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831136</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1263999300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative works</p></div><p>Honestly, I'm not sure this is a great argument for copyright reform...</p><p>If you look at Disney (who are notorious for lobbying copyright changes/extensions) for example...  They've got an absolute stranglehold on a lot of their original IP.  They've extended those copyrights well beyond the original limits.  But they're still turning out new material.  When is the last time you actually saw Mickey Mouse in anything new?  I don't even think I've seen him in much of their advertising lately...</p><p>So, Disney is obviously turning out new creative works.  Well...  Ok...  Maybe not terribly creative, as it seems they're all just princess stories...  But they're rolling out new characters and new movies and whatnot.</p><p>Yes, their stranglehold on the copyright of the old <i>Sleeping Beauty</i> movie allows them to re-release it every couple of years in limited numbers, and make money off of it over and over again...  But they're still turning out new stuff.</p><p>The problem with extending copyright to infinity (and beyond!) is that it doesn't allow other folks to expand on the original creation.</p><p>H.P. Lovecraft's greatest contribution to literature wasn't any of the actual stories he wrote, but his correspondence with other authors.  They freely shared ideas and information...  Swapped plot elements and settings and characters...  And now you've firmly established the Cthulhu Mythos as a genre all its own.  <i>The Necronomicon</i> has become, quite possibly, the best-known evil book in existence.  It shows up everywhere.  And this would never have happened if H.P. Lovercraft (or his estate, or whoever managed to buy his rights, or whatever) had maintained a stranglehold on his IP.</p><p>Look at recent variations on the old Jane Austen books...  <i>Pride and Prejudice and Zombies</i> or <i>Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters</i>...</p><p>Or all the re-envisioning of Shakespeare's stuff...  <i>Romeo and Juliet</i> becomes <i>West Side Story</i> becomes <i>Romeo Must Die</i>...</p><p>With the stranglehold that Disney has on its IP, nobody is going to be rolling out <i>Mickey Mouse and Zombies</i> anytime soon.  Well, maybe if you could convince folks it was a parody or something...  But you'd have one hell of a legal battle to fight.</p><p>And this is where perpetual copyright is harmful.</p><p>The original creators are going to create or not, according to their whims.  Maybe they're content to milk a title forever...  Maybe that title isn't interesting enough to be milked forever...  Maybe they're just so full of ideas they can't stop creating...  Maybe they'd like to create more, but they just don't have anything else to say...</p><p>No copyright law is ever going to magically flood the world with new creative works.  No law or financial incentive is going to inspire creativity in somebody with absolutely no talent for creation.  It isn't going to force some brilliant artist to take up the brush again just because he needs to eat.  There are far easier ways to make a living.</p><p>But what it <b>does</b> do is prevent others from expanding on the original creation.</p><p>No <i>West Side Story</i>, no <i>Pride and Prejudice and Zombies</i>, no <i>Re-Animator</i>.</p><p>And I think Sherlock Holmes is a singularly bad example of this, as there are literally <b>tons</b> of derivative works out there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you can milk something infinately , it removes all incentive to create new creative worksHonestly , I 'm not sure this is a great argument for copyright reform...If you look at Disney ( who are notorious for lobbying copyright changes/extensions ) for example... They 've got an absolute stranglehold on a lot of their original IP .
They 've extended those copyrights well beyond the original limits .
But they 're still turning out new material .
When is the last time you actually saw Mickey Mouse in anything new ?
I do n't even think I 've seen him in much of their advertising lately...So , Disney is obviously turning out new creative works .
Well... Ok... Maybe not terribly creative , as it seems they 're all just princess stories... But they 're rolling out new characters and new movies and whatnot.Yes , their stranglehold on the copyright of the old Sleeping Beauty movie allows them to re-release it every couple of years in limited numbers , and make money off of it over and over again... But they 're still turning out new stuff.The problem with extending copyright to infinity ( and beyond !
) is that it does n't allow other folks to expand on the original creation.H.P .
Lovecraft 's greatest contribution to literature was n't any of the actual stories he wrote , but his correspondence with other authors .
They freely shared ideas and information... Swapped plot elements and settings and characters... And now you 've firmly established the Cthulhu Mythos as a genre all its own .
The Necronomicon has become , quite possibly , the best-known evil book in existence .
It shows up everywhere .
And this would never have happened if H.P .
Lovercraft ( or his estate , or whoever managed to buy his rights , or whatever ) had maintained a stranglehold on his IP.Look at recent variations on the old Jane Austen books... Pride and Prejudice and Zombies or Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters...Or all the re-envisioning of Shakespeare 's stuff... Romeo and Juliet becomes West Side Story becomes Romeo Must Die...With the stranglehold that Disney has on its IP , nobody is going to be rolling out Mickey Mouse and Zombies anytime soon .
Well , maybe if you could convince folks it was a parody or something... But you 'd have one hell of a legal battle to fight.And this is where perpetual copyright is harmful.The original creators are going to create or not , according to their whims .
Maybe they 're content to milk a title forever... Maybe that title is n't interesting enough to be milked forever... Maybe they 're just so full of ideas they ca n't stop creating... Maybe they 'd like to create more , but they just do n't have anything else to say...No copyright law is ever going to magically flood the world with new creative works .
No law or financial incentive is going to inspire creativity in somebody with absolutely no talent for creation .
It is n't going to force some brilliant artist to take up the brush again just because he needs to eat .
There are far easier ways to make a living.But what it does do is prevent others from expanding on the original creation.No West Side Story , no Pride and Prejudice and Zombies , no Re-Animator.And I think Sherlock Holmes is a singularly bad example of this , as there are literally tons of derivative works out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative worksHonestly, I'm not sure this is a great argument for copyright reform...If you look at Disney (who are notorious for lobbying copyright changes/extensions) for example...  They've got an absolute stranglehold on a lot of their original IP.
They've extended those copyrights well beyond the original limits.
But they're still turning out new material.
When is the last time you actually saw Mickey Mouse in anything new?
I don't even think I've seen him in much of their advertising lately...So, Disney is obviously turning out new creative works.
Well...  Ok...  Maybe not terribly creative, as it seems they're all just princess stories...  But they're rolling out new characters and new movies and whatnot.Yes, their stranglehold on the copyright of the old Sleeping Beauty movie allows them to re-release it every couple of years in limited numbers, and make money off of it over and over again...  But they're still turning out new stuff.The problem with extending copyright to infinity (and beyond!
) is that it doesn't allow other folks to expand on the original creation.H.P.
Lovecraft's greatest contribution to literature wasn't any of the actual stories he wrote, but his correspondence with other authors.
They freely shared ideas and information...  Swapped plot elements and settings and characters...  And now you've firmly established the Cthulhu Mythos as a genre all its own.
The Necronomicon has become, quite possibly, the best-known evil book in existence.
It shows up everywhere.
And this would never have happened if H.P.
Lovercraft (or his estate, or whoever managed to buy his rights, or whatever) had maintained a stranglehold on his IP.Look at recent variations on the old Jane Austen books...  Pride and Prejudice and Zombies or Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters...Or all the re-envisioning of Shakespeare's stuff...  Romeo and Juliet becomes West Side Story becomes Romeo Must Die...With the stranglehold that Disney has on its IP, nobody is going to be rolling out Mickey Mouse and Zombies anytime soon.
Well, maybe if you could convince folks it was a parody or something...  But you'd have one hell of a legal battle to fight.And this is where perpetual copyright is harmful.The original creators are going to create or not, according to their whims.
Maybe they're content to milk a title forever...  Maybe that title isn't interesting enough to be milked forever...  Maybe they're just so full of ideas they can't stop creating...  Maybe they'd like to create more, but they just don't have anything else to say...No copyright law is ever going to magically flood the world with new creative works.
No law or financial incentive is going to inspire creativity in somebody with absolutely no talent for creation.
It isn't going to force some brilliant artist to take up the brush again just because he needs to eat.
There are far easier ways to make a living.But what it does do is prevent others from expanding on the original creation.No West Side Story, no Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, no Re-Animator.And I think Sherlock Holmes is a singularly bad example of this, as there are literally tons of derivative works out there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829862</id>
	<title>Bring back 50 years</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1263985440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should have left copyright at 50 years, never mind 75 or 100.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should have left copyright at 50 years , never mind 75 or 100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should have left copyright at 50 years, never mind 75 or 100.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833768</id>
	<title>Re:Get rid of copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pity you didn't post your name.  I would have taken your works, replaced your name with someone else's in violation of the license, and reposted them everywhere possible.  Watching you writhe with the dilemma of protecting your works using copyright and being branded a hypocrite or staying true to your principles and letting all the credit for your work go to another would be priceless.</p><p>I suggest any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er with an iota of rationality should do the same to anyone who proclaims copyright needs to be abolished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pity you did n't post your name .
I would have taken your works , replaced your name with someone else 's in violation of the license , and reposted them everywhere possible .
Watching you writhe with the dilemma of protecting your works using copyright and being branded a hypocrite or staying true to your principles and letting all the credit for your work go to another would be priceless.I suggest any /.er with an iota of rationality should do the same to anyone who proclaims copyright needs to be abolished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pity you didn't post your name.
I would have taken your works, replaced your name with someone else's in violation of the license, and reposted them everywhere possible.
Watching you writhe with the dilemma of protecting your works using copyright and being branded a hypocrite or staying true to your principles and letting all the credit for your work go to another would be priceless.I suggest any /.er with an iota of rationality should do the same to anyone who proclaims copyright needs to be abolished.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829464</id>
	<title>Re:Think like a politician</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263980580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you extend copyright: Some number of jobs (thousands, tens of thousands?) saved.</p> </div><p>What jobs? Once the work is created, the author, strictly speaking, doesn't have a job, unless he starts working on a new one.</p><p>Or did you mean lawyers and accountants?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you extend copyright : Some number of jobs ( thousands , tens of thousands ?
) saved .
What jobs ?
Once the work is created , the author , strictly speaking , does n't have a job , unless he starts working on a new one.Or did you mean lawyers and accountants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you extend copyright: Some number of jobs (thousands, tens of thousands?
) saved.
What jobs?
Once the work is created, the author, strictly speaking, doesn't have a job, unless he starts working on a new one.Or did you mean lawyers and accountants?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829140</id>
	<title>Re:What a crock</title>
	<author>the\_humeister</author>
	<datestamp>1264019160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they didn't have Holmes, they'd have to all get real jobs and work for a living.</p></div><p>I wonder what the other Holmes's reaction would be? Thinking long and hard until he had an explosive idea I suppose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they did n't have Holmes , they 'd have to all get real jobs and work for a living.I wonder what the other Holmes 's reaction would be ?
Thinking long and hard until he had an explosive idea I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they didn't have Holmes, they'd have to all get real jobs and work for a living.I wonder what the other Holmes's reaction would be?
Thinking long and hard until he had an explosive idea I suppose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833744</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>celtic\_hackr</author>
	<datestamp>1264009740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, except for the fact the article is wrong on several accounts and so are the heirs, interesting article.</p><p>
First, it was the 1997 Sono Bono copyright act that extended the copyright for the single Sherlock Holmes book published after 1922, but the rmaining Sherlock Holmes books have long ago entered the public domain. Therefore the character is public domain, but no derivative work based on the 1927 Sherlock Holmes book can be made until 2017.<br>
But don't take my word for it, see for yourself at <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a34904" title="gutenberg.org">gutenberg.org</a> [gutenberg.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , except for the fact the article is wrong on several accounts and so are the heirs , interesting article .
First , it was the 1997 Sono Bono copyright act that extended the copyright for the single Sherlock Holmes book published after 1922 , but the rmaining Sherlock Holmes books have long ago entered the public domain .
Therefore the character is public domain , but no derivative work based on the 1927 Sherlock Holmes book can be made until 2017 .
But do n't take my word for it , see for yourself at gutenberg.org [ gutenberg.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, except for the fact the article is wrong on several accounts and so are the heirs, interesting article.
First, it was the 1997 Sono Bono copyright act that extended the copyright for the single Sherlock Holmes book published after 1922, but the rmaining Sherlock Holmes books have long ago entered the public domain.
Therefore the character is public domain, but no derivative work based on the 1927 Sherlock Holmes book can be made until 2017.
But don't take my word for it, see for yourself at gutenberg.org [gutenberg.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30852566</id>
	<title>Re:Disney</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1264072140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One way to stop this would be to turn Mickey into an pop culture symbol for a pedophile or terrorist...</p></div><p>Isn't the Dinsey Channel's sexualization of young teens already make it the pedophile icon?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One way to stop this would be to turn Mickey into an pop culture symbol for a pedophile or terrorist...Is n't the Dinsey Channel 's sexualization of young teens already make it the pedophile icon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One way to stop this would be to turn Mickey into an pop culture symbol for a pedophile or terrorist...Isn't the Dinsey Channel's sexualization of young teens already make it the pedophile icon?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832492</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264005540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative works</p></div><p>Which new creative works actually? The last two things I have seen are  Sherlock Holmes and Star Trek, both from the XIX Century. Er...</p><p>Seriously though: I guess many have noticed, in Hollywood for sure, but far outside as well, how America exists no more concerning creativity. For a long time already.</p><p>It's all just remaking the existing, keeping it standing, procedurizing it even more and and milk to death as much as possible.</p><p>The way out is: at some point, ever, even the most weak and suggestionable customers will get fed up, and stop buying the same re-fried broken things again.<br>Then it's gonna be funny. Especially for economists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you can milk something infinately , it removes all incentive to create new creative worksWhich new creative works actually ?
The last two things I have seen are Sherlock Holmes and Star Trek , both from the XIX Century .
Er...Seriously though : I guess many have noticed , in Hollywood for sure , but far outside as well , how America exists no more concerning creativity .
For a long time already.It 's all just remaking the existing , keeping it standing , procedurizing it even more and and milk to death as much as possible.The way out is : at some point , ever , even the most weak and suggestionable customers will get fed up , and stop buying the same re-fried broken things again.Then it 's gon na be funny .
Especially for economists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative worksWhich new creative works actually?
The last two things I have seen are  Sherlock Holmes and Star Trek, both from the XIX Century.
Er...Seriously though: I guess many have noticed, in Hollywood for sure, but far outside as well, how America exists no more concerning creativity.
For a long time already.It's all just remaking the existing, keeping it standing, procedurizing it even more and and milk to death as much as possible.The way out is: at some point, ever, even the most weak and suggestionable customers will get fed up, and stop buying the same re-fried broken things again.Then it's gonna be funny.
Especially for economists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30838550</id>
	<title>Re:Time to revert back to the 1790-1922 laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263985560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With today's digital distribution and rapid-fire publishing houses...</p></div><p>This.  The old term of copyright was up to 28 years.  If publishing today takes one tenth the effort, and has ten times the potential audience, then the new term of copyright should be 28 * (0.1) * (0.1) = 0.28 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With today 's digital distribution and rapid-fire publishing houses...This .
The old term of copyright was up to 28 years .
If publishing today takes one tenth the effort , and has ten times the potential audience , then the new term of copyright should be 28 * ( 0.1 ) * ( 0.1 ) = 0.28 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With today's digital distribution and rapid-fire publishing houses...This.
The old term of copyright was up to 28 years.
If publishing today takes one tenth the effort, and has ten times the potential audience, then the new term of copyright should be 28 * (0.1) * (0.1) = 0.28 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829068</id>
	<title>Well well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264018380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownership</p></div><p>
Watson, get me out of this web, for it would appear that the game is afoot!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownership Watson , get me out of this web , for it would appear that the game is afoot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownership
Watson, get me out of this web, for it would appear that the game is afoot!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829756</id>
	<title>Re:Time to revert back to the 1790-1922 laws</title>
	<author>Bahamut\_Omega</author>
	<datestamp>1263984060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True enough; as well as making sure that the Mafiaa racketeers get their just desserts. Hmm; extortion, blackmail, fraud, bribery to name the few. Would there be a punishment that would be suitable enough for them? Exiling them to an arctic wasteland would be fun; at least we would lose some of them to either extreme cold; wildlife or starvation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True enough ; as well as making sure that the Mafiaa racketeers get their just desserts .
Hmm ; extortion , blackmail , fraud , bribery to name the few .
Would there be a punishment that would be suitable enough for them ?
Exiling them to an arctic wasteland would be fun ; at least we would lose some of them to either extreme cold ; wildlife or starvation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True enough; as well as making sure that the Mafiaa racketeers get their just desserts.
Hmm; extortion, blackmail, fraud, bribery to name the few.
Would there be a punishment that would be suitable enough for them?
Exiling them to an arctic wasteland would be fun; at least we would lose some of them to either extreme cold; wildlife or starvation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834520</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>AthanasiusKircher</author>
	<datestamp>1264012800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What you mean, is the author's right.</p><p>
Which, from what I heard, is nearly meaningless in the USA. Right?</p></div><p>Actually, no.  It's only meaningless if an author gives away that right.  By default, the author has it.  Many publishers insist on taking it as a condition of publication, but not all.</p><p>

The problem with the US system has little to do with book publication anyway, as authors have taken a back seat to Walt Disney and movie studios in the fight to retain rights.  When you have giant corporations fighting legal battles and lobbying legislatures, of course things are going to get out of hand.  And all of this is continued by giant corporations who buy up various rights from defunct publishers or estates.  That sort of thing has nothing to do with the original intent of (US) copyright law.</p><p>

But the creator of a work does have your "author's right" by default.  The author has control of who gets to make <i>copies</i>, hence <i>copyright</i>.  It's the author's right to give up, but it is NOT "meaningless" in the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you mean , is the author 's right .
Which , from what I heard , is nearly meaningless in the USA .
Right ? Actually , no .
It 's only meaningless if an author gives away that right .
By default , the author has it .
Many publishers insist on taking it as a condition of publication , but not all .
The problem with the US system has little to do with book publication anyway , as authors have taken a back seat to Walt Disney and movie studios in the fight to retain rights .
When you have giant corporations fighting legal battles and lobbying legislatures , of course things are going to get out of hand .
And all of this is continued by giant corporations who buy up various rights from defunct publishers or estates .
That sort of thing has nothing to do with the original intent of ( US ) copyright law .
But the creator of a work does have your " author 's right " by default .
The author has control of who gets to make copies , hence copyright .
It 's the author 's right to give up , but it is NOT " meaningless " in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you mean, is the author's right.
Which, from what I heard, is nearly meaningless in the USA.
Right?Actually, no.
It's only meaningless if an author gives away that right.
By default, the author has it.
Many publishers insist on taking it as a condition of publication, but not all.
The problem with the US system has little to do with book publication anyway, as authors have taken a back seat to Walt Disney and movie studios in the fight to retain rights.
When you have giant corporations fighting legal battles and lobbying legislatures, of course things are going to get out of hand.
And all of this is continued by giant corporations who buy up various rights from defunct publishers or estates.
That sort of thing has nothing to do with the original intent of (US) copyright law.
But the creator of a work does have your "author's right" by default.
The author has control of who gets to make copies, hence copyright.
It's the author's right to give up, but it is NOT "meaningless" in the US.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829806</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>bjourne</author>
	<datestamp>1263984840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it doesn't. I don't have anything I can milk indefinitely so the incentive to me to create new works appear to be higher because i would then be able to milk my product for the rest of my life. For someone who already owns something they can milk indefinitely the incentive is still there because even rich people want to get richer.</p><p>Logically, by making the reward massive (infinite copyright), the incentive also becomes massive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it does n't .
I do n't have anything I can milk indefinitely so the incentive to me to create new works appear to be higher because i would then be able to milk my product for the rest of my life .
For someone who already owns something they can milk indefinitely the incentive is still there because even rich people want to get richer.Logically , by making the reward massive ( infinite copyright ) , the incentive also becomes massive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it doesn't.
I don't have anything I can milk indefinitely so the incentive to me to create new works appear to be higher because i would then be able to milk my product for the rest of my life.
For someone who already owns something they can milk indefinitely the incentive is still there because even rich people want to get richer.Logically, by making the reward massive (infinite copyright), the incentive also becomes massive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166</id>
	<title>Time to revert back to the 1790-1922 laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264019640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If IP owners are going to be such absolute children about this, maybe we should revert back to the old law.</p><p>It was once legally agreed upon that 14+14 years was an adequate amount of time to commercially exploit your copyright.  With today's digital distribution and rapid-fire publishing houses, does it really need to be a HUNDRED years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If IP owners are going to be such absolute children about this , maybe we should revert back to the old law.It was once legally agreed upon that 14 + 14 years was an adequate amount of time to commercially exploit your copyright .
With today 's digital distribution and rapid-fire publishing houses , does it really need to be a HUNDRED years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If IP owners are going to be such absolute children about this, maybe we should revert back to the old law.It was once legally agreed upon that 14+14 years was an adequate amount of time to commercially exploit your copyright.
With today's digital distribution and rapid-fire publishing houses, does it really need to be a HUNDRED years?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834374</id>
	<title>Re:What a crock</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1264012200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I can understand why they fight so hard. If they didn't have Holmes, they'd have to all get real jobs and work for a living.</p></div><p>Perhaps by writing a book or something.

</p><p>Wait, what was copyright supposed to be for again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I can understand why they fight so hard .
If they did n't have Holmes , they 'd have to all get real jobs and work for a living.Perhaps by writing a book or something .
Wait , what was copyright supposed to be for again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I can understand why they fight so hard.
If they didn't have Holmes, they'd have to all get real jobs and work for a living.Perhaps by writing a book or something.
Wait, what was copyright supposed to be for again?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829568</id>
	<title>Re:Time to revert back to the 1790-1922 laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263981900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>better would be 1922-1790 laws</htmltext>
<tokenext>better would be 1922-1790 laws</tokentext>
<sentencetext>better would be 1922-1790 laws</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830400</id>
	<title>Copyright laws are theft of culture.</title>
	<author>Greymoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263991740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Copyrights are granted as a contract between society and the creator. Society grants protection for an artist's work for a brief time, in return society becomes the benefactor of these works once copyrights elapse. Failure to release works to public domain and instituting new copyright laws to lengthen copyright duration violate this contract, in effect theft of culture.

Copyrights - 7 years.
Patents - 10 years.
Anything more is stealing your culture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyrights are granted as a contract between society and the creator .
Society grants protection for an artist 's work for a brief time , in return society becomes the benefactor of these works once copyrights elapse .
Failure to release works to public domain and instituting new copyright laws to lengthen copyright duration violate this contract , in effect theft of culture .
Copyrights - 7 years .
Patents - 10 years .
Anything more is stealing your culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyrights are granted as a contract between society and the creator.
Society grants protection for an artist's work for a brief time, in return society becomes the benefactor of these works once copyrights elapse.
Failure to release works to public domain and instituting new copyright laws to lengthen copyright duration violate this contract, in effect theft of culture.
Copyrights - 7 years.
Patents - 10 years.
Anything more is stealing your culture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829156</id>
	<title>"Sherlock Holmes was the Conan Doyle family curse"</title>
	<author>lordlod</author>
	<datestamp>1264019280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The Conan Doyle family would like your pity.
</p><p>
They were <b>forced</b> to obtain and maintain the copyright on the Sherlock Holmes stories.
It's so terribly hard managing all those bank accounts.
</p><p>
In fact, Jean Conan Doyle said that "Sherlock Holmes was the Conan Doyle family curse."
</p><p>
I certainly feel <i>something</i> for the family now.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Conan Doyle family would like your pity .
They were forced to obtain and maintain the copyright on the Sherlock Holmes stories .
It 's so terribly hard managing all those bank accounts .
In fact , Jean Conan Doyle said that " Sherlock Holmes was the Conan Doyle family curse .
" I certainly feel something for the family now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The Conan Doyle family would like your pity.
They were forced to obtain and maintain the copyright on the Sherlock Holmes stories.
It's so terribly hard managing all those bank accounts.
In fact, Jean Conan Doyle said that "Sherlock Holmes was the Conan Doyle family curse.
"

I certainly feel something for the family now.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829730</id>
	<title>Moriarity was a professor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll try to remember to ask about that, when I get around to his bar again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll try to remember to ask about that , when I get around to his bar again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll try to remember to ask about that, when I get around to his bar again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834154</id>
	<title>Laundering Copyright?</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1264011420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bit seems a bit odd<br><i>At her death in 1997, Jean Conan Doyle bequeathed her father&rsquo;s copyrights to the Royal National Institute of Blind People. The institute sold the rights back to the Doyle heirs, who transferred them into a family-owned company.</i></p><p>You might know that the British copyright to <i>Peter Pan</i> is currently held by the <a href="http://www.peterpanchildrensfund.org/" title="peterpanch...nsfund.org">Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital (GOSH)</a> [peterpanch...nsfund.org]. Even though <i>Peter Pan</i> is out of copyright in the United States, a British purchase of that same book will "help sick children", and, iirc, purchases will continue to do so indefinitely. The moral arguments against perpetual copyright are thus arrayed against innocent lives. This may be an unique arrangement, but the RNIBP exists for a similarly charitable purpose. Might they too have a special exemption from the normal rules of copyright, an exemption that somehow was transferred back to a private, non-charitable corporation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bit seems a bit oddAt her death in 1997 , Jean Conan Doyle bequeathed her father    s copyrights to the Royal National Institute of Blind People .
The institute sold the rights back to the Doyle heirs , who transferred them into a family-owned company.You might know that the British copyright to Peter Pan is currently held by the Great Ormond Street Children 's Hospital ( GOSH ) [ peterpanch...nsfund.org ] .
Even though Peter Pan is out of copyright in the United States , a British purchase of that same book will " help sick children " , and , iirc , purchases will continue to do so indefinitely .
The moral arguments against perpetual copyright are thus arrayed against innocent lives .
This may be an unique arrangement , but the RNIBP exists for a similarly charitable purpose .
Might they too have a special exemption from the normal rules of copyright , an exemption that somehow was transferred back to a private , non-charitable corporation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bit seems a bit oddAt her death in 1997, Jean Conan Doyle bequeathed her father’s copyrights to the Royal National Institute of Blind People.
The institute sold the rights back to the Doyle heirs, who transferred them into a family-owned company.You might know that the British copyright to Peter Pan is currently held by the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital (GOSH) [peterpanch...nsfund.org].
Even though Peter Pan is out of copyright in the United States, a British purchase of that same book will "help sick children", and, iirc, purchases will continue to do so indefinitely.
The moral arguments against perpetual copyright are thus arrayed against innocent lives.
This may be an unique arrangement, but the RNIBP exists for a similarly charitable purpose.
Might they too have a special exemption from the normal rules of copyright, an exemption that somehow was transferred back to a private, non-charitable corporation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30835484</id>
	<title>Re:Time to revert back to the 1790-1922 laws</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1264016580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'd like to see a study done on books, music, movies, etc that graphs out how much money they make each year after their release. My guess is that 95\% (if not more) of the money is made in the first 5 years.</i> <br> <br>If not considerably less. There's also the complication of staggered releases. If a hardback should be considered the same as a paperback. If a film print should be considered the same as a DVD. Even if a rental DV should be considered the same as a for sale DVD.<br> <br> <i>After that, money made on most works likely plummets each year until it brings in a bare trickle of funds.</i> <br> <br>Assuming it is even still "in print".<br> <br> <i>Yes, some works (e.g. the original Star Wars movies) continue to make tons of cash decades after they were released, but I'm betting those are few and far between.</i> <br> <br>There's also a certain irony in that some of the most sucessful works nearly didn't get published.<br> <br> <i>We definitely shouldn't shape copyright law to protect 2\% of works which are still making money thus locking the 98\% of works which aren't from going into the public domain.</i> <br> <br>The former may not even be a high as 2\%. There also don't appear to be many examples of works which made little or no money for decades then suddenly became popular.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see a study done on books , music , movies , etc that graphs out how much money they make each year after their release .
My guess is that 95 \ % ( if not more ) of the money is made in the first 5 years .
If not considerably less .
There 's also the complication of staggered releases .
If a hardback should be considered the same as a paperback .
If a film print should be considered the same as a DVD .
Even if a rental DV should be considered the same as a for sale DVD .
After that , money made on most works likely plummets each year until it brings in a bare trickle of funds .
Assuming it is even still " in print " .
Yes , some works ( e.g .
the original Star Wars movies ) continue to make tons of cash decades after they were released , but I 'm betting those are few and far between .
There 's also a certain irony in that some of the most sucessful works nearly did n't get published .
We definitely should n't shape copyright law to protect 2 \ % of works which are still making money thus locking the 98 \ % of works which are n't from going into the public domain .
The former may not even be a high as 2 \ % .
There also do n't appear to be many examples of works which made little or no money for decades then suddenly became popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see a study done on books, music, movies, etc that graphs out how much money they make each year after their release.
My guess is that 95\% (if not more) of the money is made in the first 5 years.
If not considerably less.
There's also the complication of staggered releases.
If a hardback should be considered the same as a paperback.
If a film print should be considered the same as a DVD.
Even if a rental DV should be considered the same as a for sale DVD.
After that, money made on most works likely plummets each year until it brings in a bare trickle of funds.
Assuming it is even still "in print".
Yes, some works (e.g.
the original Star Wars movies) continue to make tons of cash decades after they were released, but I'm betting those are few and far between.
There's also a certain irony in that some of the most sucessful works nearly didn't get published.
We definitely shouldn't shape copyright law to protect 2\% of works which are still making money thus locking the 98\% of works which aren't from going into the public domain.
The former may not even be a high as 2\%.
There also don't appear to be many examples of works which made little or no money for decades then suddenly became popular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831112</id>
	<title>Re:What a crock</title>
	<author>delinear</author>
	<datestamp>1263999240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It wouldn't be too hard to administer, you just transfer the burden to the estate, say after 25 years it automatically expires unless the heirs meet your criteria and they fill out the relevant forms annually. If they're getting an income based on someone else's work, the least they can do is fill out a form to prove their entitlement, plus this will help works which nobody wants to protect enter the public domain sooner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would n't be too hard to administer , you just transfer the burden to the estate , say after 25 years it automatically expires unless the heirs meet your criteria and they fill out the relevant forms annually .
If they 're getting an income based on someone else 's work , the least they can do is fill out a form to prove their entitlement , plus this will help works which nobody wants to protect enter the public domain sooner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wouldn't be too hard to administer, you just transfer the burden to the estate, say after 25 years it automatically expires unless the heirs meet your criteria and they fill out the relevant forms annually.
If they're getting an income based on someone else's work, the least they can do is fill out a form to prove their entitlement, plus this will help works which nobody wants to protect enter the public domain sooner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829436</id>
	<title>i don't understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263980220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i don't understand.. why is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Sherlock-Holmes-ebook/dp/B000JQU1VS" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">one of his books</a> [amazon.com] being "sold" for free then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't understand.. why is one of his books [ amazon.com ] being " sold " for free then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't understand.. why is one of his books [amazon.com] being "sold" for free then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834558</id>
	<title>Re:Disney</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1264012920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>As much as the current state of the copyright law and the public domain pisses me off, I can't help but laugh at the rationale that was presented when they extended copyright from life of the author plus 50 years to plus 70 years. They really did argue that it was necessary as an incentive for artists to produce--it wouldn't be worth it to do the work if their heirs couldn't benefit from the work that long.</i> <br> <br>It gets ever dafter when copyright is extended on works which already exist. Even if you allow for the posibility of someone using a time machine to go and convince their ancestor that copyright isn't long enough you run into a classic time travel paradox<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as the current state of the copyright law and the public domain pisses me off , I ca n't help but laugh at the rationale that was presented when they extended copyright from life of the author plus 50 years to plus 70 years .
They really did argue that it was necessary as an incentive for artists to produce--it would n't be worth it to do the work if their heirs could n't benefit from the work that long .
It gets ever dafter when copyright is extended on works which already exist .
Even if you allow for the posibility of someone using a time machine to go and convince their ancestor that copyright is n't long enough you run into a classic time travel paradox : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as the current state of the copyright law and the public domain pisses me off, I can't help but laugh at the rationale that was presented when they extended copyright from life of the author plus 50 years to plus 70 years.
They really did argue that it was necessary as an incentive for artists to produce--it wouldn't be worth it to do the work if their heirs couldn't benefit from the work that long.
It gets ever dafter when copyright is extended on works which already exist.
Even if you allow for the posibility of someone using a time machine to go and convince their ancestor that copyright isn't long enough you run into a classic time travel paradox :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830450</id>
	<title>In the words of Holmes himself...</title>
	<author>message144</author>
	<datestamp>1263992280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This story presents some very singular features".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This story presents some very singular features " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This story presents some very singular features".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832972</id>
	<title>Jeremy Brett</title>
	<author>K-tWizel</author>
	<datestamp>1264007220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny no one seems to have mentioned the BBC version staring Jeremy Brett who, IMHO, was probably the best at Sherlock.  Where does the BBC derive the rights from there?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny no one seems to have mentioned the BBC version staring Jeremy Brett who , IMHO , was probably the best at Sherlock .
Where does the BBC derive the rights from there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny no one seems to have mentioned the BBC version staring Jeremy Brett who, IMHO, was probably the best at Sherlock.
Where does the BBC derive the rights from there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832052</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1264003620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'd point out that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is also very dead, which probably prevents him from making new creative works more than a lack of financial incentive, but I agree with you in principle.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
GP appears to be under the impression that creative people only work if they are being paid, and that therefore if they are being paid for existing work, they won't do any new stuff.
<br>
By this logic, no one should be allowed to have any savings or own any property as it will make them lazy by letting them not work all the time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd point out that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is also very dead , which probably prevents him from making new creative works more than a lack of financial incentive , but I agree with you in principle .
GP appears to be under the impression that creative people only work if they are being paid , and that therefore if they are being paid for existing work , they wo n't do any new stuff .
By this logic , no one should be allowed to have any savings or own any property as it will make them lazy by letting them not work all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd point out that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is also very dead, which probably prevents him from making new creative works more than a lack of financial incentive, but I agree with you in principle.
GP appears to be under the impression that creative people only work if they are being paid, and that therefore if they are being paid for existing work, they won't do any new stuff.
By this logic, no one should be allowed to have any savings or own any property as it will make them lazy by letting them not work all the time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829590</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? Incentive for creative work was an argument for copyright?</p><p>No. It wasn&rsquo;t. Look at the word. It says <em>copy</em>right. The right to copy. To reproduce the work.<br>It has nothing to do with creativity or art. It has to do with publishers and money.</p><p>What you mean, is the author&rsquo;s right.<br>Which, from what I heard, is nearly meaningless in the USA. Right?</p><p>In Germany we have the Urheberrecht instead of the copyright. The Urheberrecht (literally &ldquo;originator&rsquo;s right&rdquo;) is the right of the one who created the work. And it can&rsquo;t be given away. Ever. (The rule is, that if you&rsquo;re payed by the hour, the payer is the originator. If you&rsquo;re payed all at once, you are.)<br>Which is pretty nice.</p><p>Except that many people here start to think we are government by US laws. They always see the term &ldquo;copyright&ldquo; and  think that&rsquo;s a German thing. Which results in silly things, like people stating to own the copyright on something they literally just copied. Like <a href="http://deutschlands-obstsorten.de/do/mainhtml/" title="deutschlan...tsorten.de">this idiot here, who really just scanned stuff in, and now thinks this entitles him to some right</a> [deutschlan...tsorten.de].</p><p>Nowadays, nobody needs publishers anymore. So they are clinging to the last twig they still got: Extending copyright as far as possible. Like with this thing here. If your life would depend on it, you&rsquo;d do the same. It always gets looong and weird at the end.<br>But I don&rsquo;t worry, since it&rsquo;s impossible to keep this going forever. Sooner or later, there is no art and no artist left. New artists already couldn&rsquo;t care less about them. And there will be a time, where their extensions will become just so silly, that <em>everybody</em> stops taking them seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
Incentive for creative work was an argument for copyright ? No .
It wasn    t .
Look at the word .
It says copyright .
The right to copy .
To reproduce the work.It has nothing to do with creativity or art .
It has to do with publishers and money.What you mean , is the author    s right.Which , from what I heard , is nearly meaningless in the USA .
Right ? In Germany we have the Urheberrecht instead of the copyright .
The Urheberrecht ( literally    originator    s right    ) is the right of the one who created the work .
And it can    t be given away .
Ever. ( The rule is , that if you    re payed by the hour , the payer is the originator .
If you    re payed all at once , you are .
) Which is pretty nice.Except that many people here start to think we are government by US laws .
They always see the term    copyright    and think that    s a German thing .
Which results in silly things , like people stating to own the copyright on something they literally just copied .
Like this idiot here , who really just scanned stuff in , and now thinks this entitles him to some right [ deutschlan...tsorten.de ] .Nowadays , nobody needs publishers anymore .
So they are clinging to the last twig they still got : Extending copyright as far as possible .
Like with this thing here .
If your life would depend on it , you    d do the same .
It always gets looong and weird at the end.But I don    t worry , since it    s impossible to keep this going forever .
Sooner or later , there is no art and no artist left .
New artists already couldn    t care less about them .
And there will be a time , where their extensions will become just so silly , that everybody stops taking them seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
Incentive for creative work was an argument for copyright?No.
It wasn’t.
Look at the word.
It says copyright.
The right to copy.
To reproduce the work.It has nothing to do with creativity or art.
It has to do with publishers and money.What you mean, is the author’s right.Which, from what I heard, is nearly meaningless in the USA.
Right?In Germany we have the Urheberrecht instead of the copyright.
The Urheberrecht (literally “originator’s right”) is the right of the one who created the work.
And it can’t be given away.
Ever. (The rule is, that if you’re payed by the hour, the payer is the originator.
If you’re payed all at once, you are.
)Which is pretty nice.Except that many people here start to think we are government by US laws.
They always see the term “copyright“ and  think that’s a German thing.
Which results in silly things, like people stating to own the copyright on something they literally just copied.
Like this idiot here, who really just scanned stuff in, and now thinks this entitles him to some right [deutschlan...tsorten.de].Nowadays, nobody needs publishers anymore.
So they are clinging to the last twig they still got: Extending copyright as far as possible.
Like with this thing here.
If your life would depend on it, you’d do the same.
It always gets looong and weird at the end.But I don’t worry, since it’s impossible to keep this going forever.
Sooner or later, there is no art and no artist left.
New artists already couldn’t care less about them.
And there will be a time, where their extensions will become just so silly, that everybody stops taking them seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829304</id>
	<title>Re:where does the 2023 date come from?</title>
	<author>Pretzalzz</author>
	<datestamp>1263978180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last sherlock holmes story was published in 1927 which would theoretically last under copyright until 2023.  But the majority of the stories are pre-1920 and presumably public domain.  The post-1923 are also considered the worst according to wikipedia.  But mostly in the bookstore you see a large compilation of Sherlock Holmes with every story.  To publish every story you'd need to pay a royalty for the 5\% still under copyright.  The estate charges an inflated amount for this 5\% and the publisher pays it since he is spreading the cost over the stories that he doesn't have to strictly pay for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last sherlock holmes story was published in 1927 which would theoretically last under copyright until 2023 .
But the majority of the stories are pre-1920 and presumably public domain .
The post-1923 are also considered the worst according to wikipedia .
But mostly in the bookstore you see a large compilation of Sherlock Holmes with every story .
To publish every story you 'd need to pay a royalty for the 5 \ % still under copyright .
The estate charges an inflated amount for this 5 \ % and the publisher pays it since he is spreading the cost over the stories that he does n't have to strictly pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last sherlock holmes story was published in 1927 which would theoretically last under copyright until 2023.
But the majority of the stories are pre-1920 and presumably public domain.
The post-1923 are also considered the worst according to wikipedia.
But mostly in the bookstore you see a large compilation of Sherlock Holmes with every story.
To publish every story you'd need to pay a royalty for the 5\% still under copyright.
The estate charges an inflated amount for this 5\% and the publisher pays it since he is spreading the cost over the stories that he doesn't have to strictly pay for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829566</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263981900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"if you can milk something infinitely, it removes all incentive to create new creative works"</i> </p><p>For the holder of the original IP, yes. However, for other people this could been seen as a good thing - I can't write a book about Sherlock Holmes because he's still under copyright, etc. etc., so instead I create my own character and scenario.</p><p>Which is better? Taking a public domain character and inserting them into a story, or being forced to come up with something new - and possibly better - instead?</p><p>It depends on how you look at it - some people haven't got a creative bone in their body and would rather just take existing works and tinker with them. For others, they would rather come up with someone of their own invention.</p><p>Surely coming up with something new and original is preferable to delving into the public domain archives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" if you can milk something infinitely , it removes all incentive to create new creative works " For the holder of the original IP , yes .
However , for other people this could been seen as a good thing - I ca n't write a book about Sherlock Holmes because he 's still under copyright , etc .
etc. , so instead I create my own character and scenario.Which is better ?
Taking a public domain character and inserting them into a story , or being forced to come up with something new - and possibly better - instead ? It depends on how you look at it - some people have n't got a creative bone in their body and would rather just take existing works and tinker with them .
For others , they would rather come up with someone of their own invention.Surely coming up with something new and original is preferable to delving into the public domain archives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "if you can milk something infinitely, it removes all incentive to create new creative works" For the holder of the original IP, yes.
However, for other people this could been seen as a good thing - I can't write a book about Sherlock Holmes because he's still under copyright, etc.
etc., so instead I create my own character and scenario.Which is better?
Taking a public domain character and inserting them into a story, or being forced to come up with something new - and possibly better - instead?It depends on how you look at it - some people haven't got a creative bone in their body and would rather just take existing works and tinker with them.
For others, they would rather come up with someone of their own invention.Surely coming up with something new and original is preferable to delving into the public domain archives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829706</id>
	<title>Re:i don't understand</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1263983640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For me that page says - Print List Price: $3.99, Kindle Price:	$2.35 includes VAT &amp; international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet, You Save: $1.64 (41\%). So maybe it's free to US Kindle owners, but not international ones. Poor dumb saps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For me that page says - Print List Price : $ 3.99 , Kindle Price : $ 2.35 includes VAT &amp; international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet , You Save : $ 1.64 ( 41 \ % ) .
So maybe it 's free to US Kindle owners , but not international ones .
Poor dumb saps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me that page says - Print List Price: $3.99, Kindle Price:	$2.35 includes VAT &amp; international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet, You Save: $1.64 (41\%).
So maybe it's free to US Kindle owners, but not international ones.
Poor dumb saps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831456</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264000920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Capitalism is not about being creative, just about making money. While you keep doing money, all good. If that money flow could stop, then is time to make new laws to avoid that happens, like extending copyright time or limiting internet freedom</htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism is not about being creative , just about making money .
While you keep doing money , all good .
If that money flow could stop , then is time to make new laws to avoid that happens , like extending copyright time or limiting internet freedom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism is not about being creative, just about making money.
While you keep doing money, all good.
If that money flow could stop, then is time to make new laws to avoid that happens, like extending copyright time or limiting internet freedom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829412</id>
	<title>Re:Think like a politician</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263980040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If copyright is extended jobs are lost. You don't need to hire people to create new stuff because you can still earn money from the ancient stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If copyright is extended jobs are lost .
You do n't need to hire people to create new stuff because you can still earn money from the ancient stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If copyright is extended jobs are lost.
You don't need to hire people to create new stuff because you can still earn money from the ancient stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829674</id>
	<title>Fuck all this nazi shit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have only 30-40 years left to live in this Naziworld.</p><p>I'll use bittorrent or similar stuff till the end and when I download Sherlock Holmes I'll delete it because I care about pussies not Holmes.</p><p>Have a nice day in your Naziworld.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have only 30-40 years left to live in this Naziworld.I 'll use bittorrent or similar stuff till the end and when I download Sherlock Holmes I 'll delete it because I care about pussies not Holmes.Have a nice day in your Naziworld .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have only 30-40 years left to live in this Naziworld.I'll use bittorrent or similar stuff till the end and when I download Sherlock Holmes I'll delete it because I care about pussies not Holmes.Have a nice day in your Naziworld.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833922</id>
	<title>Re:What a crock</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1264010520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do prefer something slightly different:  This provides a reasonable copywrite term for owners of original works, while also protecting and encouraging active investment in valuable works</p><p>1) Death of author plus 25 or death of surviving spouse plus 10, whichever comes second.  If the initial author is in fact a registered business instead of a person, the copywrite will be 40 years from date of publication.<br>2) complete sale of rights from the author to a 3rd party sets the copywrite to 25 years from that date.  Sale from a spouse to a 3rd party sets the copywrite at 10 years.<br>3) sale from one party to another not involving the author does not modify the current copywrite term (and that term must be explicetly spelled out in the sale of rights as confirmed by the copywrite office).<br>4) sale or bequeath from a 3rd party back to the original author or surviving spouse extends the copywrite back to #1 if it had been reduced by sale to a business or 3rd party.<br>5) a business or entity in possession of the rights may extend those rights by 10 years if at a point in the previous 10 years a product or derivitive work was produced and openly sold at FRAND prices (produced and sold on media available for general sale at non-exclusive merchants, or produced for which tickets to view were sold without restriction on purchasers).  This can be done indeffinetly so long as new work is produced!<br>6) the ORIGINAL work (and each derivitiave) automatically becomes public domain for free access and redistribution in any form after 50 years from publication of that piece of work (if original publisehd in 2000 and derrivitive in 2004, copywrite is 2050 and 2054 respectively), only the rights to produce DERIVITIVE works remain after 50 years and only that right can be extended.  (reworkings, remasters, re-edit, directors cuts, and "feat." etc do NOT count as derivitive works, only NEW work reshot/rerecorded and intended to be a completely new work (for example, sequals, complete franchize reboots, spin-offs count, but Metallica doing their old songs with a new symphony orchastra does not, nor would another band doing a cover of their work count).<br>7) Seperation of tracks/works:  placing an old or remastered track on new media as part of a compilation does NOT grant protection to the other track any differently than had it been released indipendently.  When works are released as collections, it must be indicated on the packaging which works have differing copywrites by year.  Public domain works may be included in compilations, but they must not include any forms of copy protection the remainder of the work may be protected with.<br>8) "associated work" in the form of behind the scenes features, commentary, shorts, deleted scenes, lost episodes, etc, even if released later as features of another work, hold the copywrite of the original work the associated work is based on.<br>9) (likely most contravercial here) manditory sale of work:  Should a 3rd party offer a copywrite holder who is not the author or surviving spouse a price equivalent to not less than 3 times the previous 25 years total profit on the collective work (adjusted for inflation), the work must be sold in any case where new or derivitive work has not been produced for sale within the previous 10 years, provided not less than 10\% of the additional profit from the work produced by the new owner is provided to the owner forced to sell until such a time as the copywrite fully expires (including all extentions).  This may not be enforced on any work less than 30 years from original date of publish, nor may the price offer be below the total costs incurred by the owner if the work was un/marginally profitable during the previous 25 years.  (this clause is to enforce companies who bought rights from an author to either actively use the work for the intent of profit, or to sell it to someone willing to do so while covering the current owner for any losses as well as guaranteeing potential future profit should the buyer make any.</p><p>In a nutshell: If you made it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do prefer something slightly different : This provides a reasonable copywrite term for owners of original works , while also protecting and encouraging active investment in valuable works1 ) Death of author plus 25 or death of surviving spouse plus 10 , whichever comes second .
If the initial author is in fact a registered business instead of a person , the copywrite will be 40 years from date of publication.2 ) complete sale of rights from the author to a 3rd party sets the copywrite to 25 years from that date .
Sale from a spouse to a 3rd party sets the copywrite at 10 years.3 ) sale from one party to another not involving the author does not modify the current copywrite term ( and that term must be explicetly spelled out in the sale of rights as confirmed by the copywrite office ) .4 ) sale or bequeath from a 3rd party back to the original author or surviving spouse extends the copywrite back to # 1 if it had been reduced by sale to a business or 3rd party.5 ) a business or entity in possession of the rights may extend those rights by 10 years if at a point in the previous 10 years a product or derivitive work was produced and openly sold at FRAND prices ( produced and sold on media available for general sale at non-exclusive merchants , or produced for which tickets to view were sold without restriction on purchasers ) .
This can be done indeffinetly so long as new work is produced ! 6 ) the ORIGINAL work ( and each derivitiave ) automatically becomes public domain for free access and redistribution in any form after 50 years from publication of that piece of work ( if original publisehd in 2000 and derrivitive in 2004 , copywrite is 2050 and 2054 respectively ) , only the rights to produce DERIVITIVE works remain after 50 years and only that right can be extended .
( reworkings , remasters , re-edit , directors cuts , and " feat .
" etc do NOT count as derivitive works , only NEW work reshot/rerecorded and intended to be a completely new work ( for example , sequals , complete franchize reboots , spin-offs count , but Metallica doing their old songs with a new symphony orchastra does not , nor would another band doing a cover of their work count ) .7 ) Seperation of tracks/works : placing an old or remastered track on new media as part of a compilation does NOT grant protection to the other track any differently than had it been released indipendently .
When works are released as collections , it must be indicated on the packaging which works have differing copywrites by year .
Public domain works may be included in compilations , but they must not include any forms of copy protection the remainder of the work may be protected with.8 ) " associated work " in the form of behind the scenes features , commentary , shorts , deleted scenes , lost episodes , etc , even if released later as features of another work , hold the copywrite of the original work the associated work is based on.9 ) ( likely most contravercial here ) manditory sale of work : Should a 3rd party offer a copywrite holder who is not the author or surviving spouse a price equivalent to not less than 3 times the previous 25 years total profit on the collective work ( adjusted for inflation ) , the work must be sold in any case where new or derivitive work has not been produced for sale within the previous 10 years , provided not less than 10 \ % of the additional profit from the work produced by the new owner is provided to the owner forced to sell until such a time as the copywrite fully expires ( including all extentions ) .
This may not be enforced on any work less than 30 years from original date of publish , nor may the price offer be below the total costs incurred by the owner if the work was un/marginally profitable during the previous 25 years .
( this clause is to enforce companies who bought rights from an author to either actively use the work for the intent of profit , or to sell it to someone willing to do so while covering the current owner for any losses as well as guaranteeing potential future profit should the buyer make any.In a nutshell : If you made it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do prefer something slightly different:  This provides a reasonable copywrite term for owners of original works, while also protecting and encouraging active investment in valuable works1) Death of author plus 25 or death of surviving spouse plus 10, whichever comes second.
If the initial author is in fact a registered business instead of a person, the copywrite will be 40 years from date of publication.2) complete sale of rights from the author to a 3rd party sets the copywrite to 25 years from that date.
Sale from a spouse to a 3rd party sets the copywrite at 10 years.3) sale from one party to another not involving the author does not modify the current copywrite term (and that term must be explicetly spelled out in the sale of rights as confirmed by the copywrite office).4) sale or bequeath from a 3rd party back to the original author or surviving spouse extends the copywrite back to #1 if it had been reduced by sale to a business or 3rd party.5) a business or entity in possession of the rights may extend those rights by 10 years if at a point in the previous 10 years a product or derivitive work was produced and openly sold at FRAND prices (produced and sold on media available for general sale at non-exclusive merchants, or produced for which tickets to view were sold without restriction on purchasers).
This can be done indeffinetly so long as new work is produced!6) the ORIGINAL work (and each derivitiave) automatically becomes public domain for free access and redistribution in any form after 50 years from publication of that piece of work (if original publisehd in 2000 and derrivitive in 2004, copywrite is 2050 and 2054 respectively), only the rights to produce DERIVITIVE works remain after 50 years and only that right can be extended.
(reworkings, remasters, re-edit, directors cuts, and "feat.
" etc do NOT count as derivitive works, only NEW work reshot/rerecorded and intended to be a completely new work (for example, sequals, complete franchize reboots, spin-offs count, but Metallica doing their old songs with a new symphony orchastra does not, nor would another band doing a cover of their work count).7) Seperation of tracks/works:  placing an old or remastered track on new media as part of a compilation does NOT grant protection to the other track any differently than had it been released indipendently.
When works are released as collections, it must be indicated on the packaging which works have differing copywrites by year.
Public domain works may be included in compilations, but they must not include any forms of copy protection the remainder of the work may be protected with.8) "associated work" in the form of behind the scenes features, commentary, shorts, deleted scenes, lost episodes, etc, even if released later as features of another work, hold the copywrite of the original work the associated work is based on.9) (likely most contravercial here) manditory sale of work:  Should a 3rd party offer a copywrite holder who is not the author or surviving spouse a price equivalent to not less than 3 times the previous 25 years total profit on the collective work (adjusted for inflation), the work must be sold in any case where new or derivitive work has not been produced for sale within the previous 10 years, provided not less than 10\% of the additional profit from the work produced by the new owner is provided to the owner forced to sell until such a time as the copywrite fully expires (including all extentions).
This may not be enforced on any work less than 30 years from original date of publish, nor may the price offer be below the total costs incurred by the owner if the work was un/marginally profitable during the previous 25 years.
(this clause is to enforce companies who bought rights from an author to either actively use the work for the intent of profit, or to sell it to someone willing to do so while covering the current owner for any losses as well as guaranteeing potential future profit should the buyer make any.In a nutshell: If you made it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833092</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>JacksBrokenCode</author>
	<datestamp>1264007640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative works</p></div><p>I see this argument a lot on Slashdot and it's absurd on its face.  For as long as the copyright is in effect, there may be less incentive for the <em>owner</em> to create other works, however, there is more incentive for <em>other creators</em> to produce creative works.  Since others cannot personally benefit from a previously created work (unless they own it), they are encouraged to create new works of their own.  Your argument seems to assume that there is only one creator out there and this individual stops making new creations then there will be no new works.</p><p>If copyright was short term or nonexistent and Tex Avery chose to copy Mickey Mouse instead of creating Bugs Bunny, would that have contributed to art or culture?  Walt Disney owned Mickey Mouse, but he didn't sit around "milking" that property infinitely - he created a whole cast of additional characters.  He was then able to use his ownership of those creative works to build up a company that provided jobs for thousands of animators, construction workers, designers, unskilled workers, etc.</p><p>Allowing people to control their creative works <em>fosters</em> creativity, it doesn't <em>stifle</em> it.  Even if a creator chooses to stop creating and live off his/her existing properties, that doesn't prevent the rest of the world from producing new and unique works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you can milk something infinately , it removes all incentive to create new creative worksI see this argument a lot on Slashdot and it 's absurd on its face .
For as long as the copyright is in effect , there may be less incentive for the owner to create other works , however , there is more incentive for other creators to produce creative works .
Since others can not personally benefit from a previously created work ( unless they own it ) , they are encouraged to create new works of their own .
Your argument seems to assume that there is only one creator out there and this individual stops making new creations then there will be no new works.If copyright was short term or nonexistent and Tex Avery chose to copy Mickey Mouse instead of creating Bugs Bunny , would that have contributed to art or culture ?
Walt Disney owned Mickey Mouse , but he did n't sit around " milking " that property infinitely - he created a whole cast of additional characters .
He was then able to use his ownership of those creative works to build up a company that provided jobs for thousands of animators , construction workers , designers , unskilled workers , etc.Allowing people to control their creative works fosters creativity , it does n't stifle it .
Even if a creator chooses to stop creating and live off his/her existing properties , that does n't prevent the rest of the world from producing new and unique works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative worksI see this argument a lot on Slashdot and it's absurd on its face.
For as long as the copyright is in effect, there may be less incentive for the owner to create other works, however, there is more incentive for other creators to produce creative works.
Since others cannot personally benefit from a previously created work (unless they own it), they are encouraged to create new works of their own.
Your argument seems to assume that there is only one creator out there and this individual stops making new creations then there will be no new works.If copyright was short term or nonexistent and Tex Avery chose to copy Mickey Mouse instead of creating Bugs Bunny, would that have contributed to art or culture?
Walt Disney owned Mickey Mouse, but he didn't sit around "milking" that property infinitely - he created a whole cast of additional characters.
He was then able to use his ownership of those creative works to build up a company that provided jobs for thousands of animators, construction workers, designers, unskilled workers, etc.Allowing people to control their creative works fosters creativity, it doesn't stifle it.
Even if a creator chooses to stop creating and live off his/her existing properties, that doesn't prevent the rest of the world from producing new and unique works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834050</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>evil\_aar0n</author>
	<datestamp>1264011060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Methinks you protest too much.  Even Doyle gave Poe credit for being the "father of the detective story", and Dupin the "first" detective.</p><p>See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Murders\_in\_the\_Rue\_Morgue" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Murders\_in\_the\_Rue\_Morgue</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Doyle's contributions are certainly welcome and valuable, but he's not the alpha-and-omega.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Methinks you protest too much .
Even Doyle gave Poe credit for being the " father of the detective story " , and Dupin the " first " detective.See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Murders \ _in \ _the \ _Rue \ _Morgue [ wikipedia.org ] Doyle 's contributions are certainly welcome and valuable , but he 's not the alpha-and-omega .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Methinks you protest too much.
Even Doyle gave Poe credit for being the "father of the detective story", and Dupin the "first" detective.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Murders\_in\_the\_Rue\_Morgue [wikipedia.org]Doyle's contributions are certainly welcome and valuable, but he's not the alpha-and-omega.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831124</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>martyros</author>
	<datestamp>1263999240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But in theory, raising money for his heirs might have been a motivating factor for him to have written it originally... if the current laws had been in place at the time.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But in theory , raising money for his heirs might have been a motivating factor for him to have written it originally... if the current laws had been in place at the time .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in theory, raising money for his heirs might have been a motivating factor for him to have written it originally... if the current laws had been in place at the time.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830174</id>
	<title>Re:What a crock</title>
	<author>Wildclaw</author>
	<datestamp>1263989160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should the commercial copyright part be owned by private people in the first place? The right to be recognized as the creator is one thing. There shouldn't even be a time limit on that one. But the money part? Why is authorship treated so differently from any other type of work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the commercial copyright part be owned by private people in the first place ?
The right to be recognized as the creator is one thing .
There should n't even be a time limit on that one .
But the money part ?
Why is authorship treated so differently from any other type of work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the commercial copyright part be owned by private people in the first place?
The right to be recognized as the creator is one thing.
There shouldn't even be a time limit on that one.
But the money part?
Why is authorship treated so differently from any other type of work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830328</id>
	<title>Re:Time to revert back to the 1790-1922 laws</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1263990960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, the recent movie Avatar made 1.6 billion USD worldwide after just a month. Not 5 years. Not 50. Not 120.<br><br>I say even 50 years is too long.<br><br>14 might be OK.<br><br>Microsoft has made plenty out of Windows 95. If Windows 95 going public domain is a threat to Windows 7, then maybe they should make something much better right?<br><br>And in 5 years they must release something way better than Windows XP. Which is harder, but hey if you want to encourage innovation and increase the pace of progress.<br><br>Say they fail, and the Windows XP compatibles and copies start hitting the market, would it be so bad?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the recent movie Avatar made 1.6 billion USD worldwide after just a month .
Not 5 years .
Not 50 .
Not 120.I say even 50 years is too long.14 might be OK.Microsoft has made plenty out of Windows 95 .
If Windows 95 going public domain is a threat to Windows 7 , then maybe they should make something much better right ? And in 5 years they must release something way better than Windows XP .
Which is harder , but hey if you want to encourage innovation and increase the pace of progress.Say they fail , and the Windows XP compatibles and copies start hitting the market , would it be so bad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the recent movie Avatar made 1.6 billion USD worldwide after just a month.
Not 5 years.
Not 50.
Not 120.I say even 50 years is too long.14 might be OK.Microsoft has made plenty out of Windows 95.
If Windows 95 going public domain is a threat to Windows 7, then maybe they should make something much better right?And in 5 years they must release something way better than Windows XP.
Which is harder, but hey if you want to encourage innovation and increase the pace of progress.Say they fail, and the Windows XP compatibles and copies start hitting the market, would it be so bad?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833718</id>
	<title>Copy-Wrongs</title>
	<author>kellyb9</author>
	<datestamp>1264009680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I'm not entirely anti-copyright. I just find it sad to think about all the works that could possibly fall into the public domain if this lunacy didn't exist. I'm so sick of these estates profitting on the backs of their talented relatives. If it were in public domain, maybe they could try and prove that the apple didnt fall far from the tree and find a way to profit out of it... or even, god forbid - come up with their own IP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm not entirely anti-copyright .
I just find it sad to think about all the works that could possibly fall into the public domain if this lunacy did n't exist .
I 'm so sick of these estates profitting on the backs of their talented relatives .
If it were in public domain , maybe they could try and prove that the apple didnt fall far from the tree and find a way to profit out of it... or even , god forbid - come up with their own IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm not entirely anti-copyright.
I just find it sad to think about all the works that could possibly fall into the public domain if this lunacy didn't exist.
I'm so sick of these estates profitting on the backs of their talented relatives.
If it were in public domain, maybe they could try and prove that the apple didnt fall far from the tree and find a way to profit out of it... or even, god forbid - come up with their own IP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833048</id>
	<title>Re:Disney</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264007460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I hate is arguments that if the copyright is allowed to lapse that anyone will be able to create whatever derivative they want and sell them as legit.</p> </div><p>Um, people could do just that.  That's the whole point of the public domain.  You can legitimately copy and make derivative works once something is in the public domain.  No, you couldn't put Disney's name on it, because that's a trademark issue, but you certainly could make derivative works to your heart's content.  And you could sell them at any outlet that would let you.  This is why you can go to Barnes  &amp; Noble and buy scads of sequels to <em>Pride and Prejudice</em>.  This is why you can buy <em>Pride and Prejudice and Zombies</em>.  It's in the public domain.  People can do whatever they want with it.</p><p>The reason you wouldn't see Mickey Mouse porn at Wal-Mart is that Wal-Mart does not want to be the kind of place where you can buy Mickey Mouse porn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I hate is arguments that if the copyright is allowed to lapse that anyone will be able to create whatever derivative they want and sell them as legit .
Um , people could do just that .
That 's the whole point of the public domain .
You can legitimately copy and make derivative works once something is in the public domain .
No , you could n't put Disney 's name on it , because that 's a trademark issue , but you certainly could make derivative works to your heart 's content .
And you could sell them at any outlet that would let you .
This is why you can go to Barnes &amp; Noble and buy scads of sequels to Pride and Prejudice .
This is why you can buy Pride and Prejudice and Zombies .
It 's in the public domain .
People can do whatever they want with it.The reason you would n't see Mickey Mouse porn at Wal-Mart is that Wal-Mart does not want to be the kind of place where you can buy Mickey Mouse porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I hate is arguments that if the copyright is allowed to lapse that anyone will be able to create whatever derivative they want and sell them as legit.
Um, people could do just that.
That's the whole point of the public domain.
You can legitimately copy and make derivative works once something is in the public domain.
No, you couldn't put Disney's name on it, because that's a trademark issue, but you certainly could make derivative works to your heart's content.
And you could sell them at any outlet that would let you.
This is why you can go to Barnes  &amp; Noble and buy scads of sequels to Pride and Prejudice.
This is why you can buy Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
It's in the public domain.
People can do whatever they want with it.The reason you wouldn't see Mickey Mouse porn at Wal-Mart is that Wal-Mart does not want to be the kind of place where you can buy Mickey Mouse porn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831866</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264002840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If I passed a law that said copyrights now last 10^100 years </i></p><p>But then you might get sued by Google! (It's not just <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1586086/google-guns-superheroine" title="theinquirer.net" rel="nofollow">copyright law that's gone messed up</a> [theinquirer.net].)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I passed a law that said copyrights now last 10 ^ 100 years But then you might get sued by Google !
( It 's not just copyright law that 's gone messed up [ theinquirer.net ] .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I passed a law that said copyrights now last 10^100 years But then you might get sued by Google!
(It's not just copyright law that's gone messed up [theinquirer.net].
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834280</id>
	<title>Re:Time to revert back to the 1790-1922 laws</title>
	<author>AthanasiusKircher</author>
	<datestamp>1264011780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  There was nothing wrong with this old law.  Fourteen years is often plenty; if the author still cares after 14, he/she can renew it for another 14.</p><p>

Almost 30 years is more than enough.  It allows for the occasional work that might take a few years to achieve popularity.  It's about half of most people's adult lifespan.</p><p>

Then the work reverts to the public domain.  Very few works take decades to become popular.  And if for some reason the work does become popular 30 years after it was published, the author can always create something new and trade on his/her newly-found fame.</p><p>

Copyright should not be the default status of a work.  The default status should be public domain, with a "limited time" option available for creators (and distributors) to recoup their expenses in their initial public offering of their creation.</p><p>

Note that the Constitution wants to promote "progress" -- it wants to encourage the production of new works, not allow creators (and their children) to live off one of them for their entire lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
There was nothing wrong with this old law .
Fourteen years is often plenty ; if the author still cares after 14 , he/she can renew it for another 14 .
Almost 30 years is more than enough .
It allows for the occasional work that might take a few years to achieve popularity .
It 's about half of most people 's adult lifespan .
Then the work reverts to the public domain .
Very few works take decades to become popular .
And if for some reason the work does become popular 30 years after it was published , the author can always create something new and trade on his/her newly-found fame .
Copyright should not be the default status of a work .
The default status should be public domain , with a " limited time " option available for creators ( and distributors ) to recoup their expenses in their initial public offering of their creation .
Note that the Constitution wants to promote " progress " -- it wants to encourage the production of new works , not allow creators ( and their children ) to live off one of them for their entire lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
There was nothing wrong with this old law.
Fourteen years is often plenty; if the author still cares after 14, he/she can renew it for another 14.
Almost 30 years is more than enough.
It allows for the occasional work that might take a few years to achieve popularity.
It's about half of most people's adult lifespan.
Then the work reverts to the public domain.
Very few works take decades to become popular.
And if for some reason the work does become popular 30 years after it was published, the author can always create something new and trade on his/her newly-found fame.
Copyright should not be the default status of a work.
The default status should be public domain, with a "limited time" option available for creators (and distributors) to recoup their expenses in their initial public offering of their creation.
Note that the Constitution wants to promote "progress" -- it wants to encourage the production of new works, not allow creators (and their children) to live off one of them for their entire lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832074</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1264003740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>When is the last time you actually saw Mickey Mouse in anything new?</i> <br> <br>
A few weeks ago.  I flipped past the Family Channel and noticed that Mickey and the gang were given the "Pixar" treatment.  They're now <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ODPtsAJXgM" title="youtube.com">3D CGI characters</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>When is the last time you actually saw Mickey Mouse in anything new ?
A few weeks ago .
I flipped past the Family Channel and noticed that Mickey and the gang were given the " Pixar " treatment .
They 're now 3D CGI characters [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When is the last time you actually saw Mickey Mouse in anything new?
A few weeks ago.
I flipped past the Family Channel and noticed that Mickey and the gang were given the "Pixar" treatment.
They're now 3D CGI characters [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30841286</id>
	<title>Re:Disney</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1264000080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&gt; One way to stop this would be to turn Mickey into an pop culture symbol for a pedophile or terrorist...
</p><p>
's been tried -- LSD.  Didn't take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; One way to stop this would be to turn Mickey into an pop culture symbol for a pedophile or terrorist.. . 's been tried -- LSD .
Did n't take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
&gt; One way to stop this would be to turn Mickey into an pop culture symbol for a pedophile or terrorist...

's been tried -- LSD.
Didn't take.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094</id>
	<title>Disney</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264018620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can blame Disney and their rodent for the current state of copyright laws. Don't think that when copyright period for Mickey once again draws to a close there won't be a large bundle of cash handed out to the nearest person able to extend the period another 20-50  years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can blame Disney and their rodent for the current state of copyright laws .
Do n't think that when copyright period for Mickey once again draws to a close there wo n't be a large bundle of cash handed out to the nearest person able to extend the period another 20-50 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can blame Disney and their rodent for the current state of copyright laws.
Don't think that when copyright period for Mickey once again draws to a close there won't be a large bundle of cash handed out to the nearest person able to extend the period another 20-50  years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833314</id>
	<title>Re:Think like a politician</title>
	<author>zzyzyx</author>
	<datestamp>1264008300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IP exports certainly wouldn't be generating revenue since other countries didn't extend the copyright and thus can copy the work for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IP exports certainly would n't be generating revenue since other countries did n't extend the copyright and thus can copy the work for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP exports certainly wouldn't be generating revenue since other countries didn't extend the copyright and thus can copy the work for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829098</id>
	<title>What a crock</title>
	<author>davmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264018740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that none of the current living "heirs" is a direct descendant of the author is further proof of how screwed up our system is.</p><p>But I can understand why they fight so hard.  If they didn't have Holmes, they'd have to all get real jobs and work for a living.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that none of the current living " heirs " is a direct descendant of the author is further proof of how screwed up our system is.But I can understand why they fight so hard .
If they did n't have Holmes , they 'd have to all get real jobs and work for a living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that none of the current living "heirs" is a direct descendant of the author is further proof of how screwed up our system is.But I can understand why they fight so hard.
If they didn't have Holmes, they'd have to all get real jobs and work for a living.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831878</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1264002900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative works</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The creation of the character Sherlock Holmes does not prevent anyone from writing/filming stories featuring a consulting detective from the 1890s (or whatever) as long as they don't call him Sherlock Holmes.
<br>
What sort of block on creativity is this?  You just can't flat out copy someone else's work, but if you were going to do that it's not exactly creative to start with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you can milk something infinately , it removes all incentive to create new creative works The creation of the character Sherlock Holmes does not prevent anyone from writing/filming stories featuring a consulting detective from the 1890s ( or whatever ) as long as they do n't call him Sherlock Holmes .
What sort of block on creativity is this ?
You just ca n't flat out copy someone else 's work , but if you were going to do that it 's not exactly creative to start with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative works

The creation of the character Sherlock Holmes does not prevent anyone from writing/filming stories featuring a consulting detective from the 1890s (or whatever) as long as they don't call him Sherlock Holmes.
What sort of block on creativity is this?
You just can't flat out copy someone else's work, but if you were going to do that it's not exactly creative to start with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834282</id>
	<title>Re:Disney</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what, that is a terrific idea, we really should make mickey mouse the new symbol of pedophiles, that would teach those assholes that have been destroying the public domain a lesson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what , that is a terrific idea , we really should make mickey mouse the new symbol of pedophiles , that would teach those assholes that have been destroying the public domain a lesson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what, that is a terrific idea, we really should make mickey mouse the new symbol of pedophiles, that would teach those assholes that have been destroying the public domain a lesson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829672</id>
	<title>Re:What a crock</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1263983220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>How about: lifetime of spouse or until the youngest child is 25 years, whichever is greater.</i>
<br> <br>
Pff, they will ensure that offspring is created from a sperm bank each quarter of a century.
<br> <br>
CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about : lifetime of spouse or until the youngest child is 25 years , whichever is greater .
Pff , they will ensure that offspring is created from a sperm bank each quarter of a century .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about: lifetime of spouse or until the youngest child is 25 years, whichever is greater.
Pff, they will ensure that offspring is created from a sperm bank each quarter of a century.
CC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829914</id>
	<title>Re:Disney</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263985980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as the current state of the copyright law and the public domain pisses me off, I can't help but laugh at the rationale that was presented when they extended copyright from life of the author plus 50 years to plus 70 years. They really did argue that it was necessary as an incentive for artists to produce&mdash;it wouldn't be worth it to do the work if their heirs couldn't benefit from the work that long.</p><p>So, a bunch of lobbyists explained, with straight faces, to some congresspeople&mdash;who then went on to repeat the explanation in session, also with straight faces&mdash;that an author would actually sit around and say, "Let's see, if I finish this novel and it's successful, the revenue will feed my kids for the rest of my life, plus 50 years after I'm dead. Hmm. Nope, for the work I'd have to put in, I'm gonna need the rest of my natural life plus at least 60 years or so, ideally 70. To hell with this 50-year bullshit, I'm going drinking."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as the current state of the copyright law and the public domain pisses me off , I ca n't help but laugh at the rationale that was presented when they extended copyright from life of the author plus 50 years to plus 70 years .
They really did argue that it was necessary as an incentive for artists to produce    it would n't be worth it to do the work if their heirs could n't benefit from the work that long.So , a bunch of lobbyists explained , with straight faces , to some congresspeople    who then went on to repeat the explanation in session , also with straight faces    that an author would actually sit around and say , " Let 's see , if I finish this novel and it 's successful , the revenue will feed my kids for the rest of my life , plus 50 years after I 'm dead .
Hmm. Nope , for the work I 'd have to put in , I 'm gon na need the rest of my natural life plus at least 60 years or so , ideally 70 .
To hell with this 50-year bullshit , I 'm going drinking .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as the current state of the copyright law and the public domain pisses me off, I can't help but laugh at the rationale that was presented when they extended copyright from life of the author plus 50 years to plus 70 years.
They really did argue that it was necessary as an incentive for artists to produce—it wouldn't be worth it to do the work if their heirs couldn't benefit from the work that long.So, a bunch of lobbyists explained, with straight faces, to some congresspeople—who then went on to repeat the explanation in session, also with straight faces—that an author would actually sit around and say, "Let's see, if I finish this novel and it's successful, the revenue will feed my kids for the rest of my life, plus 50 years after I'm dead.
Hmm. Nope, for the work I'd have to put in, I'm gonna need the rest of my natural life plus at least 60 years or so, ideally 70.
To hell with this 50-year bullshit, I'm going drinking.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829182</id>
	<title>Re:What a crock</title>
	<author>lordholm</author>
	<datestamp>1264019820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only reason to extend after the death is to ensure that the husband/wife receives a pension and the children are supported until they can start working by themselves. For the first part, 70 years is most likely a bit excessive for most cases, and for the second case definitely excessive. How about: lifetime of spouse or until the youngest child is 25 years, whichever is greater. This may be difficult to administer, in that case, just make it 25 years after death and you have covered it in 95\% of all cases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason to extend after the death is to ensure that the husband/wife receives a pension and the children are supported until they can start working by themselves .
For the first part , 70 years is most likely a bit excessive for most cases , and for the second case definitely excessive .
How about : lifetime of spouse or until the youngest child is 25 years , whichever is greater .
This may be difficult to administer , in that case , just make it 25 years after death and you have covered it in 95 \ % of all cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason to extend after the death is to ensure that the husband/wife receives a pension and the children are supported until they can start working by themselves.
For the first part, 70 years is most likely a bit excessive for most cases, and for the second case definitely excessive.
How about: lifetime of spouse or until the youngest child is 25 years, whichever is greater.
This may be difficult to administer, in that case, just make it 25 years after death and you have covered it in 95\% of all cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626</id>
	<title>Re:Disney</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can blame Disney and their rodent for the current state of copyright laws. Don't think that when copyright period for Mickey once again draws to a close there won't be a large bundle of cash handed out to the nearest person able to extend the period another 20-50 years.</p></div><p>One way to stop this would be to turn Mickey into an pop culture symbol for a pedophile or terrorist...</p><p>Degrade the icon to the point where Disney would rather wash their hands of the rodent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can blame Disney and their rodent for the current state of copyright laws .
Do n't think that when copyright period for Mickey once again draws to a close there wo n't be a large bundle of cash handed out to the nearest person able to extend the period another 20-50 years.One way to stop this would be to turn Mickey into an pop culture symbol for a pedophile or terrorist...Degrade the icon to the point where Disney would rather wash their hands of the rodent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can blame Disney and their rodent for the current state of copyright laws.
Don't think that when copyright period for Mickey once again draws to a close there won't be a large bundle of cash handed out to the nearest person able to extend the period another 20-50 years.One way to stop this would be to turn Mickey into an pop culture symbol for a pedophile or terrorist...Degrade the icon to the point where Disney would rather wash their hands of the rodent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830294</id>
	<title>Re:The copyright cash cow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263990660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative works</i> </p><p>Sherlock Holmes is a piss-poor example for this argument.</p><p>The character is arguably the most famous and instantly recognizable in all English literature.</p><p>There have been hundreds if not thousands of new Holmes stories published. Countless books, films, stage, radio and tv productions. In each generation, a new actor becomes <i> <b>the</b></i>  definitive Sherlock Holmes.</p><p> There have puppet shows, comics, cartoons, graphic novels - Dover even publishes a set of paper dolls.</p><p>The modern mystery and detective story begins with Holmes. Doyle introduced three important and suggestive ideas:</p><p>1 Holmes is a private detective, in the modern meaning of the word.He is almost never reduced to solving a problem with a fist or a gun, I don't think of how fresh and novel that was.</p><p>2 Doyle separated the narrator and the detective.</p><p>Watson can tell the story in the first person without cheating the reader.</p><p>He can ask the questions the reader wants answered. He can be an Archie Goodwin or a Nora Charles.</p><p>2 Holmes is firmly anchored in a particular time and place - a time and place he instantly invokes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you can milk something infinately , it removes all incentive to create new creative works Sherlock Holmes is a piss-poor example for this argument.The character is arguably the most famous and instantly recognizable in all English literature.There have been hundreds if not thousands of new Holmes stories published .
Countless books , films , stage , radio and tv productions .
In each generation , a new actor becomes the definitive Sherlock Holmes .
There have puppet shows , comics , cartoons , graphic novels - Dover even publishes a set of paper dolls.The modern mystery and detective story begins with Holmes .
Doyle introduced three important and suggestive ideas : 1 Holmes is a private detective , in the modern meaning of the word.He is almost never reduced to solving a problem with a fist or a gun , I do n't think of how fresh and novel that was.2 Doyle separated the narrator and the detective.Watson can tell the story in the first person without cheating the reader.He can ask the questions the reader wants answered .
He can be an Archie Goodwin or a Nora Charles.2 Holmes is firmly anchored in a particular time and place - a time and place he instantly invokes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative works Sherlock Holmes is a piss-poor example for this argument.The character is arguably the most famous and instantly recognizable in all English literature.There have been hundreds if not thousands of new Holmes stories published.
Countless books, films, stage, radio and tv productions.
In each generation, a new actor becomes  the  definitive Sherlock Holmes.
There have puppet shows, comics, cartoons, graphic novels - Dover even publishes a set of paper dolls.The modern mystery and detective story begins with Holmes.
Doyle introduced three important and suggestive ideas:1 Holmes is a private detective, in the modern meaning of the word.He is almost never reduced to solving a problem with a fist or a gun, I don't think of how fresh and novel that was.2 Doyle separated the narrator and the detective.Watson can tell the story in the first person without cheating the reader.He can ask the questions the reader wants answered.
He can be an Archie Goodwin or a Nora Charles.2 Holmes is firmly anchored in a particular time and place - a time and place he instantly invokes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30841624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30852566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30841286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30843434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30838550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30836350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30836170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30835484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2253213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30841286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30843434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30852566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30841624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30836350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30838550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30835484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829420
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830174
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829610
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831124
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832052
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831136
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832074
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830294
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829566
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829590
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30832440
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829794
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829518
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30830900
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30831866
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30834074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30836170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30833744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2253213.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2253213.30829096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
