<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_20_0037202</id>
	<title>CBS Refuses To Preserve Jack Benny Footage</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263996420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>goosman writes <i>"The president of the <a href="http://www.jackbenny.org/">International Jack Benny Fan Club</a> had the opportunity to review some holdings of the CBS vaults while assisting them with some transfers. In the vaults she found 25 shows on film that were unreleased, but in the public domain. The IJBFC offered to pay for the digitization and preservation of these shows; they got a letter of enthusiastic support from the Benny estate. CBS has so far <a href="http://www.jackbenny.org/biography/other/cbs\_permanently\_seals\_jack\_benny.htm">refused to allow</a> this preservation to happen."</i> <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/18/cbs-uncovers-rare-ja.html">BoingBoing</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100118/1050427800.shtml">TechDirt</a> have both covered this act of cultural destruction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>goosman writes " The president of the International Jack Benny Fan Club had the opportunity to review some holdings of the CBS vaults while assisting them with some transfers .
In the vaults she found 25 shows on film that were unreleased , but in the public domain .
The IJBFC offered to pay for the digitization and preservation of these shows ; they got a letter of enthusiastic support from the Benny estate .
CBS has so far refused to allow this preservation to happen .
" BoingBoing and TechDirt have both covered this act of cultural destruction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>goosman writes "The president of the International Jack Benny Fan Club had the opportunity to review some holdings of the CBS vaults while assisting them with some transfers.
In the vaults she found 25 shows on film that were unreleased, but in the public domain.
The IJBFC offered to pay for the digitization and preservation of these shows; they got a letter of enthusiastic support from the Benny estate.
CBS has so far refused to allow this preservation to happen.
" BoingBoing and TechDirt have both covered this act of cultural destruction.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828196</id>
	<title>Re:Management Types...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263920580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pure unadulterated <b>GREED</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pure unadulterated GREED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pure unadulterated GREED.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828576</id>
	<title>Re:Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1263924060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I checked out the links provided in the summary then started reading through Slashdotter responses and comments.</p><p>I was pleasantly surprised to see that most of the discussion was serious, balanced and fairly constructive.</p><p>I then realized I wasn't logged in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I checked out the links provided in the summary then started reading through Slashdotter responses and comments.I was pleasantly surprised to see that most of the discussion was serious , balanced and fairly constructive.I then realized I was n't logged in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I checked out the links provided in the summary then started reading through Slashdotter responses and comments.I was pleasantly surprised to see that most of the discussion was serious, balanced and fairly constructive.I then realized I wasn't logged in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827574</id>
	<title>Benny is great</title>
	<author>XanC</author>
	<datestamp>1263914160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of the stuff in Looney Tunes / Merry Melodies comes from Benny.  And he's the master of timing.  It's brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of the stuff in Looney Tunes / Merry Melodies comes from Benny .
And he 's the master of timing .
It 's brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of the stuff in Looney Tunes / Merry Melodies comes from Benny.
And he's the master of timing.
It's brilliant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827606</id>
	<title>Eminent domain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the federal government could appropriate the masters via eminent domain and make them available through the Library of Congress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the federal government could appropriate the masters via eminent domain and make them available through the Library of Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the federal government could appropriate the masters via eminent domain and make them available through the Library of Congress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30834118</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect Example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... My point with this being: In the 50-100 years or so when CP/M, MS-DOS, PC-DOS, Microsoft Windows 1.0, etc should be coming out of copyright, allowing people three to five generations from now to benefit from being able to explore the code behind the massively successful and historic works,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>And I'm positive that Windows 1.0, at least, will get as many laughs as Jack did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... My point with this being : In the 50-100 years or so when CP/M , MS-DOS , PC-DOS , Microsoft Windows 1.0 , etc should be coming out of copyright , allowing people three to five generations from now to benefit from being able to explore the code behind the massively successful and historic works , ...And I 'm positive that Windows 1.0 , at least , will get as many laughs as Jack did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... My point with this being: In the 50-100 years or so when CP/M, MS-DOS, PC-DOS, Microsoft Windows 1.0, etc should be coming out of copyright, allowing people three to five generations from now to benefit from being able to explore the code behind the massively successful and historic works, ...And I'm positive that Windows 1.0, at least, will get as many laughs as Jack did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827596</id>
	<title>I best remember him as an mst3k punchline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever the camera focused on an old-timey radio the bots would call out "The Jack Benny Program!"</p><p>I'm double-dating myself, first for referencing mst3k and second for getting the joke. But dating yourself is legal in west virginia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever the camera focused on an old-timey radio the bots would call out " The Jack Benny Program !
" I 'm double-dating myself , first for referencing mst3k and second for getting the joke .
But dating yourself is legal in west virginia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever the camera focused on an old-timey radio the bots would call out "The Jack Benny Program!
"I'm double-dating myself, first for referencing mst3k and second for getting the joke.
But dating yourself is legal in west virginia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828566</id>
	<title>Re:Eminent domain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263924000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed the whole "eminent domain" bit.</p><p>How well does explaining that "it's [my] property after all and [I] can do what [I] want with it" work when the government decides it needs my land to sell to a developer to build a shopping center that will pay more taxes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed the whole " eminent domain " bit.How well does explaining that " it 's [ my ] property after all and [ I ] can do what [ I ] want with it " work when the government decides it needs my land to sell to a developer to build a shopping center that will pay more taxes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed the whole "eminent domain" bit.How well does explaining that "it's [my] property after all and [I] can do what [I] want with it" work when the government decides it needs my land to sell to a developer to build a shopping center that will pay more taxes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827740</id>
	<title>Re:Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263915840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Blame the copyright system, but do not blame CBS.<br></i></p><p>How much money did CBS contribute towards getting the current copyright laws enacted?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blame the copyright system , but do not blame CBS.How much money did CBS contribute towards getting the current copyright laws enacted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blame the copyright system, but do not blame CBS.How much money did CBS contribute towards getting the current copyright laws enacted?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827718</id>
	<title>Re:Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263915600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replying to my own article because it's even worse than that, as said in a very interesting comment in the boingboing article: apparently<br>1) the person who started this whole thing sells copies of shows, and they're not all PD.<br>2) she's a fan who's using this as an excuse to expand her collection.<br>3) her claim that she was "overseeing the color specials transfer" seems to be a lie.<br>4) CBS is willing to license these episodes out; they did not, as falsely claimed, say that it would be too much trouble even if they could iron out the legal issues<br>5) the episodes are not some unique thing that only CBS has copies of</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replying to my own article because it 's even worse than that , as said in a very interesting comment in the boingboing article : apparently1 ) the person who started this whole thing sells copies of shows , and they 're not all PD.2 ) she 's a fan who 's using this as an excuse to expand her collection.3 ) her claim that she was " overseeing the color specials transfer " seems to be a lie.4 ) CBS is willing to license these episodes out ; they did not , as falsely claimed , say that it would be too much trouble even if they could iron out the legal issues5 ) the episodes are not some unique thing that only CBS has copies of</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replying to my own article because it's even worse than that, as said in a very interesting comment in the boingboing article: apparently1) the person who started this whole thing sells copies of shows, and they're not all PD.2) she's a fan who's using this as an excuse to expand her collection.3) her claim that she was "overseeing the color specials transfer" seems to be a lie.4) CBS is willing to license these episodes out; they did not, as falsely claimed, say that it would be too much trouble even if they could iron out the legal issues5) the episodes are not some unique thing that only CBS has copies of</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827924</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263917880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pity Johnny Carson is also dead. He and Benny were extremely  close, and he would have raised holy hell over this. And the dude had a lot of clout.</p><p>Can't get outraged, though. Media conglomerates have already used up most of my outrage,  and I want to save what's left for genocide,  the Republican party, and other serious stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pity Johnny Carson is also dead .
He and Benny were extremely close , and he would have raised holy hell over this .
And the dude had a lot of clout.Ca n't get outraged , though .
Media conglomerates have already used up most of my outrage , and I want to save what 's left for genocide , the Republican party , and other serious stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pity Johnny Carson is also dead.
He and Benny were extremely  close, and he would have raised holy hell over this.
And the dude had a lot of clout.Can't get outraged, though.
Media conglomerates have already used up most of my outrage,  and I want to save what's left for genocide,  the Republican party, and other serious stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827680</id>
	<title>Re:Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1263915240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In that case, what does CBS mean by, "there are so many issues with those shows, that even if we took the time to figure it out, we still almost certainly wouldn't do the deal"?</p><p>(From TFA, of course.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In that case , what does CBS mean by , " there are so many issues with those shows , that even if we took the time to figure it out , we still almost certainly would n't do the deal " ?
( From TFA , of course .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In that case, what does CBS mean by, "there are so many issues with those shows, that even if we took the time to figure it out, we still almost certainly wouldn't do the deal"?
(From TFA, of course.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828478</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect Example</title>
	<author>adolf</author>
	<datestamp>1263923220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh?</p><p>Just because I've released a binary under protection of copyright, doesn't mean that the source code used to produce that binary should ever become public just because the copyright on the binary has expired.</p><p>Your tirade is absurd.</p><p>What else do you wish for from Santa Claus?  That when copyright on a book expires, all of the author's original notes, manuscripts and sketches become public?  Or when copyright on a movie expires, that the script become public?  That when the protection expires on an article of music, the original multitrack recordings, sheet music, MIDI files, samples, and DAW scripts used in the creation of that work also become public domain?</p><p>Sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh ? Just because I 've released a binary under protection of copyright , does n't mean that the source code used to produce that binary should ever become public just because the copyright on the binary has expired.Your tirade is absurd.What else do you wish for from Santa Claus ?
That when copyright on a book expires , all of the author 's original notes , manuscripts and sketches become public ?
Or when copyright on a movie expires , that the script become public ?
That when the protection expires on an article of music , the original multitrack recordings , sheet music , MIDI files , samples , and DAW scripts used in the creation of that work also become public domain ? Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh?Just because I've released a binary under protection of copyright, doesn't mean that the source code used to produce that binary should ever become public just because the copyright on the binary has expired.Your tirade is absurd.What else do you wish for from Santa Claus?
That when copyright on a book expires, all of the author's original notes, manuscripts and sketches become public?
Or when copyright on a movie expires, that the script become public?
That when the protection expires on an article of music, the original multitrack recordings, sheet music, MIDI files, samples, and DAW scripts used in the creation of that work also become public domain?Sheesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828292</id>
	<title>Re:revoke ALL their copyrights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263921420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not at all how public domain works. Should I have all my copyrights to everything I've ever done revoked just because I can't manage to produce a copy of a picture I drew in kindergarten that happens to be public domain now? After all, everything you create automatically has copyright.</p><p>Just because it's public domain, that doesn't mean they are required to GIVE you a copy of it, or do anything at all to facilitate that copying. It only means that if you happen to have a copy of it, you can freely distribute it. Or you can make your own copies and distribute those. But they don't have to help. That would just be stupid. Almost as stupid as copyright is right now....Actually, no, it would be \_stupider\_ than current copyright laws. But not by much.</p><p>To put it one other way: Yes, the footage is public domain. The media it is stored on is not. They can do whatever they want to that media. It is theirs. It is physical property, they own it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not at all how public domain works .
Should I have all my copyrights to everything I 've ever done revoked just because I ca n't manage to produce a copy of a picture I drew in kindergarten that happens to be public domain now ?
After all , everything you create automatically has copyright.Just because it 's public domain , that does n't mean they are required to GIVE you a copy of it , or do anything at all to facilitate that copying .
It only means that if you happen to have a copy of it , you can freely distribute it .
Or you can make your own copies and distribute those .
But they do n't have to help .
That would just be stupid .
Almost as stupid as copyright is right now....Actually , no , it would be \ _stupider \ _ than current copyright laws .
But not by much.To put it one other way : Yes , the footage is public domain .
The media it is stored on is not .
They can do whatever they want to that media .
It is theirs .
It is physical property , they own it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not at all how public domain works.
Should I have all my copyrights to everything I've ever done revoked just because I can't manage to produce a copy of a picture I drew in kindergarten that happens to be public domain now?
After all, everything you create automatically has copyright.Just because it's public domain, that doesn't mean they are required to GIVE you a copy of it, or do anything at all to facilitate that copying.
It only means that if you happen to have a copy of it, you can freely distribute it.
Or you can make your own copies and distribute those.
But they don't have to help.
That would just be stupid.
Almost as stupid as copyright is right now....Actually, no, it would be \_stupider\_ than current copyright laws.
But not by much.To put it one other way: Yes, the footage is public domain.
The media it is stored on is not.
They can do whatever they want to that media.
It is theirs.
It is physical property, they own it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828462</id>
	<title>Re:Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1263922920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right, CBS is not the enemy here. Nevertheless,  Jack Benny will still be important, for being funny, long after everyone's forgotten that CBS means the Columbia Broadcasting System.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , CBS is not the enemy here .
Nevertheless , Jack Benny will still be important , for being funny , long after everyone 's forgotten that CBS means the Columbia Broadcasting System .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, CBS is not the enemy here.
Nevertheless,  Jack Benny will still be important, for being funny, long after everyone's forgotten that CBS means the Columbia Broadcasting System.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827796</id>
	<title>Poor NBC</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1263916380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poor NBC.  They can't even hold the title of "biggest jerks"
for more than a week.  Congratulations, CBS, the new champs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor NBC .
They ca n't even hold the title of " biggest jerks " for more than a week .
Congratulations , CBS , the new champs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor NBC.
They can't even hold the title of "biggest jerks"
for more than a week.
Congratulations, CBS, the new champs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30842410</id>
	<title>Re:Management Types...</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1264010400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why do these people run things?</i></p><p>When the "content industries" have the total control they want, then suddenly the content is only valuable when they feel like it, which is only when they can squeeze some more bucks out of it. They're not interested in saving anything.</p><p>At least CBS still has copies, which is more than can be said for a lot of music masters. I've posted this link before, but it's a relevant example. <a href="http://www.billholland.net/words/vault2.html" title="billholland.net">http://www.billholland.net/words/vault2.html</a> [billholland.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do these people run things ? When the " content industries " have the total control they want , then suddenly the content is only valuable when they feel like it , which is only when they can squeeze some more bucks out of it .
They 're not interested in saving anything.At least CBS still has copies , which is more than can be said for a lot of music masters .
I 've posted this link before , but it 's a relevant example .
http : //www.billholland.net/words/vault2.html [ billholland.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do these people run things?When the "content industries" have the total control they want, then suddenly the content is only valuable when they feel like it, which is only when they can squeeze some more bucks out of it.
They're not interested in saving anything.At least CBS still has copies, which is more than can be said for a lot of music masters.
I've posted this link before, but it's a relevant example.
http://www.billholland.net/words/vault2.html [billholland.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30831922</id>
	<title>CBS (don't) care</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1264003080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't trust the commercials</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't trust the commercials</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't trust the commercials</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829802</id>
	<title>And it looked like only NBC was run by idiots...</title>
	<author>Time\_Warped</author>
	<datestamp>1263984720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently there are more than enough "pointy haired bosses" so that every one can have one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently there are more than enough " pointy haired bosses " so that every one can have one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently there are more than enough "pointy haired bosses" so that every one can have one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828962</id>
	<title>Jack Benny</title>
	<author>BradMajors</author>
	<datestamp>1263929760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember Jack Benny saying he would like to get copies of his own shows, but he couldn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember Jack Benny saying he would like to get copies of his own shows , but he could n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember Jack Benny saying he would like to get copies of his own shows, but he couldn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30836952</id>
	<title>... this act of cultural destruction</title>
	<author>surfcow</author>
	<datestamp>1263979500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure what would cause more cultural destruction: deleting the shows or airing them.  Tough call.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure what would cause more cultural destruction : deleting the shows or airing them .
Tough call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure what would cause more cultural destruction: deleting the shows or airing them.
Tough call.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30837282</id>
	<title>Not equivalent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263980880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wanted to point out that "refusing the Jack Benny Foundation from preserving the footage" is not equivalent to "refusing to preserve the footage." It could be they just don't trust them to do it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wanted to point out that " refusing the Jack Benny Foundation from preserving the footage " is not equivalent to " refusing to preserve the footage .
" It could be they just do n't trust them to do it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wanted to point out that "refusing the Jack Benny Foundation from preserving the footage" is not equivalent to "refusing to preserve the footage.
" It could be they just don't trust them to do it right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30832058</id>
	<title>Re:Benny is great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yeah, he was one of the greatest musicians of his time, he was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harry\_Truman\_and\_Jack\_Benny.jpg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">President Truman's favorite violinist</a> [wikipedia.org], on December 26, 1972 they threw a concert together, but for some reason it was thrown right back at them, fatally injuring President Truman's ego, who then passed away later that day. Jack stopped playing the violin until December 26, 1974, when he threw another concert in President Truman's honor, but ironically, the concert was also thrown back and caused Jack's premature demise.</p><p>OK, so I made some of this up, but Jack Benny and President Truman actually both died on December 26.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah , he was one of the greatest musicians of his time , he was President Truman 's favorite violinist [ wikipedia.org ] , on December 26 , 1972 they threw a concert together , but for some reason it was thrown right back at them , fatally injuring President Truman 's ego , who then passed away later that day .
Jack stopped playing the violin until December 26 , 1974 , when he threw another concert in President Truman 's honor , but ironically , the concert was also thrown back and caused Jack 's premature demise.OK , so I made some of this up , but Jack Benny and President Truman actually both died on December 26 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah, he was one of the greatest musicians of his time, he was President Truman's favorite violinist [wikipedia.org], on December 26, 1972 they threw a concert together, but for some reason it was thrown right back at them, fatally injuring President Truman's ego, who then passed away later that day.
Jack stopped playing the violin until December 26, 1974, when he threw another concert in President Truman's honor, but ironically, the concert was also thrown back and caused Jack's premature demise.OK, so I made some of this up, but Jack Benny and President Truman actually both died on December 26.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30837916</id>
	<title>Re:Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263983400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to respond to a few specific points from Stan Taffel's comments:</p><p>* "Laura Leff, the "President" of the Jack Benny Fan Club she began a few years ago" - I started the club 30 years ago, so we're a well-established and respected group that has been doing research on the work of Jack Benny for a long time.</p><p>*  "starting a Facebook petition against CBS" - I did not start this petition, but I do support the effort.</p><p>*  "CBS is also aware of the fact that Ms. Leff has a library of many existing shows<br>and charges for making copies" - Our video library is just that...a library, which operates within the definition of our organization as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group.  While we encourage voluntary donations for obtaining material from the library to support the costs of operating the organization and efforts such as preserving the shows, I have never turned down an order that didn't make a donation.</p><p>* "CBS doesn't know how she was "supervising" a transfer of one of the color shows as that is not her job. True, it was an NBC special and maybe she was invited to see a conversion but "supervising"?" - Perhaps there's a clarification on the term "supervising".  The Estate authorized me to arrange transfers of the color specials to long-term preservation media.  I was at CBS Television City during this work.  While I can't tell the folks who work there how to operate the equipment, I was there as an agent of the Estate to see the transfers being done.</p><p>*"CBS isn't the only source for 16mm kinescopes. They even told her to try to find<br>them through other avenues" - This is completely untrue.  CBS never made any such statement to me.</p><p>Additionally, I specifically asked my contact at CBS if this was an issue with us being an nonprofit and not a production company, since it was taking so long to get a response.  I was told they were dealing with it just as they would for anyone else.</p><p>I'm sorry that Mr. Taffel doesn't support our efforts to preserve this work, but I guess you can't have everyone agree with you.  The Benny family wants his work to be out and available so that people can enjoy it for generations to come.  And that's what the International Jack Benny Fan Club is trying to do.</p><p>--Laura Leff<br>President, IJBFC<br>www.jackbenny.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to respond to a few specific points from Stan Taffel 's comments : * " Laura Leff , the " President " of the Jack Benny Fan Club she began a few years ago " - I started the club 30 years ago , so we 're a well-established and respected group that has been doing research on the work of Jack Benny for a long time .
* " starting a Facebook petition against CBS " - I did not start this petition , but I do support the effort .
* " CBS is also aware of the fact that Ms. Leff has a library of many existing showsand charges for making copies " - Our video library is just that...a library , which operates within the definition of our organization as a 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) non-profit group .
While we encourage voluntary donations for obtaining material from the library to support the costs of operating the organization and efforts such as preserving the shows , I have never turned down an order that did n't make a donation .
* " CBS does n't know how she was " supervising " a transfer of one of the color shows as that is not her job .
True , it was an NBC special and maybe she was invited to see a conversion but " supervising " ?
" - Perhaps there 's a clarification on the term " supervising " .
The Estate authorized me to arrange transfers of the color specials to long-term preservation media .
I was at CBS Television City during this work .
While I ca n't tell the folks who work there how to operate the equipment , I was there as an agent of the Estate to see the transfers being done .
* " CBS is n't the only source for 16mm kinescopes .
They even told her to try to findthem through other avenues " - This is completely untrue .
CBS never made any such statement to me.Additionally , I specifically asked my contact at CBS if this was an issue with us being an nonprofit and not a production company , since it was taking so long to get a response .
I was told they were dealing with it just as they would for anyone else.I 'm sorry that Mr. Taffel does n't support our efforts to preserve this work , but I guess you ca n't have everyone agree with you .
The Benny family wants his work to be out and available so that people can enjoy it for generations to come .
And that 's what the International Jack Benny Fan Club is trying to do.--Laura LeffPresident , IJBFCwww.jackbenny.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to respond to a few specific points from Stan Taffel's comments:* "Laura Leff, the "President" of the Jack Benny Fan Club she began a few years ago" - I started the club 30 years ago, so we're a well-established and respected group that has been doing research on the work of Jack Benny for a long time.
*  "starting a Facebook petition against CBS" - I did not start this petition, but I do support the effort.
*  "CBS is also aware of the fact that Ms. Leff has a library of many existing showsand charges for making copies" - Our video library is just that...a library, which operates within the definition of our organization as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group.
While we encourage voluntary donations for obtaining material from the library to support the costs of operating the organization and efforts such as preserving the shows, I have never turned down an order that didn't make a donation.
* "CBS doesn't know how she was "supervising" a transfer of one of the color shows as that is not her job.
True, it was an NBC special and maybe she was invited to see a conversion but "supervising"?
" - Perhaps there's a clarification on the term "supervising".
The Estate authorized me to arrange transfers of the color specials to long-term preservation media.
I was at CBS Television City during this work.
While I can't tell the folks who work there how to operate the equipment, I was there as an agent of the Estate to see the transfers being done.
*"CBS isn't the only source for 16mm kinescopes.
They even told her to try to findthem through other avenues" - This is completely untrue.
CBS never made any such statement to me.Additionally, I specifically asked my contact at CBS if this was an issue with us being an nonprofit and not a production company, since it was taking so long to get a response.
I was told they were dealing with it just as they would for anyone else.I'm sorry that Mr. Taffel doesn't support our efforts to preserve this work, but I guess you can't have everyone agree with you.
The Benny family wants his work to be out and available so that people can enjoy it for generations to come.
And that's what the International Jack Benny Fan Club is trying to do.--Laura LeffPresident, IJBFCwww.jackbenny.org</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829136</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264019100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reasoning behind this from CBS is that any media released that is in the public domain will cause people to being drawn away from watching new things with copyright on that the media business can do money from.</p><p>So expect that original footage going out of copyright are going for destruction instead of re-release since they can't make money from it.</p><p>Exception would be well-known footage since that would be bad PR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reasoning behind this from CBS is that any media released that is in the public domain will cause people to being drawn away from watching new things with copyright on that the media business can do money from.So expect that original footage going out of copyright are going for destruction instead of re-release since they ca n't make money from it.Exception would be well-known footage since that would be bad PR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reasoning behind this from CBS is that any media released that is in the public domain will cause people to being drawn away from watching new things with copyright on that the media business can do money from.So expect that original footage going out of copyright are going for destruction instead of re-release since they can't make money from it.Exception would be well-known footage since that would be bad PR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552</id>
	<title>Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a big fan of Jack Benny's work I have to say CBS aren't a bunch of mother fuckers. They're a bunch of horse fuckers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a big fan of Jack Benny 's work I have to say CBS are n't a bunch of mother fuckers .
They 're a bunch of horse fuckers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a big fan of Jack Benny's work I have to say CBS aren't a bunch of mother fuckers.
They're a bunch of horse fuckers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827632</id>
	<title>Perfect Example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a perfect example of all that is wrong with copyright as it exists today. Protection is granted to creators in order to increase works available to the public, not hide them away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a perfect example of all that is wrong with copyright as it exists today .
Protection is granted to creators in order to increase works available to the public , not hide them away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a perfect example of all that is wrong with copyright as it exists today.
Protection is granted to creators in order to increase works available to the public, not hide them away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828602</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>Orestesx</author>
	<datestamp>1263924420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unlikely. Carson was rarely heard from after his retirement.

In Detroit, they used to say, only two people know the definition of retirement, Johnny Carson and Barry Sanders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlikely .
Carson was rarely heard from after his retirement .
In Detroit , they used to say , only two people know the definition of retirement , Johnny Carson and Barry Sanders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlikely.
Carson was rarely heard from after his retirement.
In Detroit, they used to say, only two people know the definition of retirement, Johnny Carson and Barry Sanders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830710</id>
	<title>Re:Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263995940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, Laura Leff did not start the Facebook page. I did. If you took the time to check, Laura Leff is a fan of the page, not an administrator.</p><p>Furthermoer, Ms. Leff is not really in the business of distributing Jack Benny materials, she burns DVDs for fan club members at $10 each. Considering cost and time, I don't think this is a profit-making venture.</p><p>I know nothing of Ms. Leff's relationship with CBS, Joan Benny, or Stan Taffel and do not really see this as material.</p><p>As any Jack Benny fan knows, there is only a couple dozen episodes of the long-running TV program available commercially or otherwise. Whatever the situation, we are showing there is a lot of love for Jack Benny out there.</p><p>http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tell-Les-Moonves-to-preserve-The-Jack-Benny-Benny-Program-masters/287864780538?ref=nf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , Laura Leff did not start the Facebook page .
I did .
If you took the time to check , Laura Leff is a fan of the page , not an administrator.Furthermoer , Ms. Leff is not really in the business of distributing Jack Benny materials , she burns DVDs for fan club members at $ 10 each .
Considering cost and time , I do n't think this is a profit-making venture.I know nothing of Ms. Leff 's relationship with CBS , Joan Benny , or Stan Taffel and do not really see this as material.As any Jack Benny fan knows , there is only a couple dozen episodes of the long-running TV program available commercially or otherwise .
Whatever the situation , we are showing there is a lot of love for Jack Benny out there.http : //www.facebook.com/pages/Tell-Les-Moonves-to-preserve-The-Jack-Benny-Benny-Program-masters/287864780538 ? ref = nf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, Laura Leff did not start the Facebook page.
I did.
If you took the time to check, Laura Leff is a fan of the page, not an administrator.Furthermoer, Ms. Leff is not really in the business of distributing Jack Benny materials, she burns DVDs for fan club members at $10 each.
Considering cost and time, I don't think this is a profit-making venture.I know nothing of Ms. Leff's relationship with CBS, Joan Benny, or Stan Taffel and do not really see this as material.As any Jack Benny fan knows, there is only a couple dozen episodes of the long-running TV program available commercially or otherwise.
Whatever the situation, we are showing there is a lot of love for Jack Benny out there.http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tell-Les-Moonves-to-preserve-The-Jack-Benny-Benny-Program-masters/287864780538?ref=nf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30831090</id>
	<title>Corporate Contempt for the Public Domain?</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1263999120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CBS and many other Corporations appear to have a contempt for the concept of the Public Domain.</p><p>To be fair it may be very expensive to preserve this footage, and they don't want to pay for it but I think they are sending us a message:</p><p>Giving the choice of destruction of a copy of a work or donation to the public domain, we would destroy anything that won't make us richer.</p><p>Or rather "#$\%@ the Public Domain".</p><p>Maybe when something becomes ready to enter the public domain it needs to be rescued by a Court Order!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CBS and many other Corporations appear to have a contempt for the concept of the Public Domain.To be fair it may be very expensive to preserve this footage , and they do n't want to pay for it but I think they are sending us a message : Giving the choice of destruction of a copy of a work or donation to the public domain , we would destroy anything that wo n't make us richer.Or rather " # $ \ % @ the Public Domain " .Maybe when something becomes ready to enter the public domain it needs to be rescued by a Court Order !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CBS and many other Corporations appear to have a contempt for the concept of the Public Domain.To be fair it may be very expensive to preserve this footage, and they don't want to pay for it but I think they are sending us a message:Giving the choice of destruction of a copy of a work or donation to the public domain, we would destroy anything that won't make us richer.Or rather "#$\%@ the Public Domain".Maybe when something becomes ready to enter the public domain it needs to be rescued by a Court Order!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827980</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect Example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been complaining about this for a while regarding source code. The notable example I can remember pointing this out was Star Control 2 (Ur Quan Masters is the name of the Open Source release.) Due to the fact that they weren't required to SUPPLY a copy of their copyrighted work/code/etc in order to obtain copyright, the original source code for the DOS version of the game was lost years ago. Toys for Bob, the guys who had programmed it (But not distributed it, which is why it's not called the SC2 Open Source release) decided after many years of fan interest to allow a full open source release of the game, datafiles and all. However they'd lost the master source code for the game years before, which resulted in the release instead of the 3do version of the source code, which thankfully HAD survived all these years.

My point with this being: In the 50-100 years or so when CP/M, MS-DOS, PC-DOS, Microsoft Windows 1.0, etc should be coming out of copyright, allowing people three to five generations from now to benefit from being able to explore the code behind the massively successful and historic works, those works will not exist, because in the greatest travesty of this generation (and there are many, both great and small), all of that information, code, documents, film, etc will be lost, because nobody other than the 'owners' was allowed to look at, back up, save, translate, and otherwise secure those culturally significant treasures for future generations. (And yes some people might not consider these items 'treasures' but they are important to both outlook and understanding of what went on during the latter half of the 20th century on through to today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been complaining about this for a while regarding source code .
The notable example I can remember pointing this out was Star Control 2 ( Ur Quan Masters is the name of the Open Source release .
) Due to the fact that they were n't required to SUPPLY a copy of their copyrighted work/code/etc in order to obtain copyright , the original source code for the DOS version of the game was lost years ago .
Toys for Bob , the guys who had programmed it ( But not distributed it , which is why it 's not called the SC2 Open Source release ) decided after many years of fan interest to allow a full open source release of the game , datafiles and all .
However they 'd lost the master source code for the game years before , which resulted in the release instead of the 3do version of the source code , which thankfully HAD survived all these years .
My point with this being : In the 50-100 years or so when CP/M , MS-DOS , PC-DOS , Microsoft Windows 1.0 , etc should be coming out of copyright , allowing people three to five generations from now to benefit from being able to explore the code behind the massively successful and historic works , those works will not exist , because in the greatest travesty of this generation ( and there are many , both great and small ) , all of that information , code , documents , film , etc will be lost , because nobody other than the 'owners ' was allowed to look at , back up , save , translate , and otherwise secure those culturally significant treasures for future generations .
( And yes some people might not consider these items 'treasures ' but they are important to both outlook and understanding of what went on during the latter half of the 20th century on through to today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been complaining about this for a while regarding source code.
The notable example I can remember pointing this out was Star Control 2 (Ur Quan Masters is the name of the Open Source release.
) Due to the fact that they weren't required to SUPPLY a copy of their copyrighted work/code/etc in order to obtain copyright, the original source code for the DOS version of the game was lost years ago.
Toys for Bob, the guys who had programmed it (But not distributed it, which is why it's not called the SC2 Open Source release) decided after many years of fan interest to allow a full open source release of the game, datafiles and all.
However they'd lost the master source code for the game years before, which resulted in the release instead of the 3do version of the source code, which thankfully HAD survived all these years.
My point with this being: In the 50-100 years or so when CP/M, MS-DOS, PC-DOS, Microsoft Windows 1.0, etc should be coming out of copyright, allowing people three to five generations from now to benefit from being able to explore the code behind the massively successful and historic works, those works will not exist, because in the greatest travesty of this generation (and there are many, both great and small), all of that information, code, documents, film, etc will be lost, because nobody other than the 'owners' was allowed to look at, back up, save, translate, and otherwise secure those culturally significant treasures for future generations.
(And yes some people might not consider these items 'treasures' but they are important to both outlook and understanding of what went on during the latter half of the 20th century on through to today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827646</id>
	<title>Well!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those films can't be in the public domain.  They're only 39 years old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those films ca n't be in the public domain .
They 're only 39 years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those films can't be in the public domain.
They're only 39 years old.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828012</id>
	<title>Re:We are te public ...</title>
	<author>muridae</author>
	<datestamp>1263918780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The content is yours to copy and redistribute as you wish, once the information is in the public domain. The individual manifestation of that data, be it book, film, whatever, is not covered by copyright and is owned. It's owner, in this case CBS, gets to decide who has access to it.</p><p>Really, is this so confusing?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. rants about how the MP/RI/AA want to control physical media, but then people make strange arguments like this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The content is yours to copy and redistribute as you wish , once the information is in the public domain .
The individual manifestation of that data , be it book , film , whatever , is not covered by copyright and is owned .
It 's owner , in this case CBS , gets to decide who has access to it.Really , is this so confusing ?
/. rants about how the MP/RI/AA want to control physical media , but then people make strange arguments like this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The content is yours to copy and redistribute as you wish, once the information is in the public domain.
The individual manifestation of that data, be it book, film, whatever, is not covered by copyright and is owned.
It's owner, in this case CBS, gets to decide who has access to it.Really, is this so confusing?
/. rants about how the MP/RI/AA want to control physical media, but then people make strange arguments like this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827612</id>
	<title>While the material may not be protected...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...by copyright, as long as CBS owns the only copies they control it and it is, therefor, not in the public domain.  The copies are their property to do with as they see fit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...by copyright , as long as CBS owns the only copies they control it and it is , therefor , not in the public domain .
The copies are their property to do with as they see fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...by copyright, as long as CBS owns the only copies they control it and it is, therefor, not in the public domain.
The copies are their property to do with as they see fit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829990</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect Example</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1263987060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have a book, you can copy and modify the book, building on it and creating derivative works. If you have a program, you cannot do that without source code. The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create works which can eventually be built upon. If that is impossible then copyright has no purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a book , you can copy and modify the book , building on it and creating derivative works .
If you have a program , you can not do that without source code .
The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create works which can eventually be built upon .
If that is impossible then copyright has no purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a book, you can copy and modify the book, building on it and creating derivative works.
If you have a program, you cannot do that without source code.
The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to create works which can eventually be built upon.
If that is impossible then copyright has no purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30843838</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>drkim</author>
	<datestamp>1264070580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Mom was Catherine the Great.
<br> <br>
So nyah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Mom was Catherine the Great .
So nyah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Mom was Catherine the Great.
So nyah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829780</id>
	<title>Re:While the material may not be protected...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263984480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does copyright start at the time of creation or distribution?<br>If the latter, they would be protected by copyright, if CBS decided to release them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does copyright start at the time of creation or distribution ? If the latter , they would be protected by copyright , if CBS decided to release them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does copyright start at the time of creation or distribution?If the latter, they would be protected by copyright, if CBS decided to release them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827538</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263913800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To the moon alice</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To the moon alice</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the moon alice</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827700</id>
	<title>Re:Management Types...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263915420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No f***in shit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No f * * * in shit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No f***in shit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828516</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263923520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, no.  Completely wrong.  That this is currently modded "insightful" . . . </p><p>If you really believe what you say, you should walk into a museum, pick up  a piece created by Rembrandt, Rubens, Renoir, Raphael--really, any "R" should do--and then explain you have the right to copy it because it's in the public domain.</p><p>Then again, you might not actually learn the finer legal points if you do this, because it would be so mind-bogglingly dumb that no one would feel the need to clarify things for you as they locked you up.  So, briefly: The person who owns a physical thing can decide who gets to see it, and under what conditions.  "Borrowing" physical things without permission for your own purposes is called "stealing", even on slashdot. "Imaginary" property just refers intellectual property, remember?  It's not a catch-all phrase for "things you happen to want without having to pay for them."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , no .
Completely wrong .
That this is currently modded " insightful " .
. .
If you really believe what you say , you should walk into a museum , pick up a piece created by Rembrandt , Rubens , Renoir , Raphael--really , any " R " should do--and then explain you have the right to copy it because it 's in the public domain.Then again , you might not actually learn the finer legal points if you do this , because it would be so mind-bogglingly dumb that no one would feel the need to clarify things for you as they locked you up .
So , briefly : The person who owns a physical thing can decide who gets to see it , and under what conditions .
" Borrowing " physical things without permission for your own purposes is called " stealing " , even on slashdot .
" Imaginary " property just refers intellectual property , remember ?
It 's not a catch-all phrase for " things you happen to want without having to pay for them .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, no.
Completely wrong.
That this is currently modded "insightful" .
. .
If you really believe what you say, you should walk into a museum, pick up  a piece created by Rembrandt, Rubens, Renoir, Raphael--really, any "R" should do--and then explain you have the right to copy it because it's in the public domain.Then again, you might not actually learn the finer legal points if you do this, because it would be so mind-bogglingly dumb that no one would feel the need to clarify things for you as they locked you up.
So, briefly: The person who owns a physical thing can decide who gets to see it, and under what conditions.
"Borrowing" physical things without permission for your own purposes is called "stealing", even on slashdot.
"Imaginary" property just refers intellectual property, remember?
It's not a catch-all phrase for "things you happen to want without having to pay for them.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827854</id>
	<title>People under 40 report here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263916920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought I was old cuz I lost plenty hair, but I'm lost on this one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought I was old cuz I lost plenty hair , but I 'm lost on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought I was old cuz I lost plenty hair, but I'm lost on this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30832128</id>
	<title>Re:revoke ALL their copyrights</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1264003980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because a work is public doesn't mean they have to make their copy available.</p><p>Their copy is still their property.  All public domain means is that if they show said work any copies made are fully legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because a work is public does n't mean they have to make their copy available.Their copy is still their property .
All public domain means is that if they show said work any copies made are fully legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because a work is public doesn't mean they have to make their copy available.Their copy is still their property.
All public domain means is that if they show said work any copies made are fully legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30853864</id>
	<title>Sad for Benny fans</title>
	<author>berkbw</author>
	<datestamp>1264076820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And sad for Irving Fein and Tisha.

Berk-</htmltext>
<tokenext>And sad for Irving Fein and Tisha .
Berk-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And sad for Irving Fein and Tisha.
Berk-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829874</id>
	<title>Jack Benny?</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1263985620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like many people my only acquaintance with JB is through the references in Death of a Salesman. Benny supposedly thanked Arthur Miller for thus keeping his name in the public view.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like many people my only acquaintance with JB is through the references in Death of a Salesman .
Benny supposedly thanked Arthur Miller for thus keeping his name in the public view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like many people my only acquaintance with JB is through the references in Death of a Salesman.
Benny supposedly thanked Arthur Miller for thus keeping his name in the public view.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828208</id>
	<title>YUO FAIL IT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263920760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and personal you. The tireless [amazingkreskin.com] the fruitless we need to address is( the group that dabblers. In truth, And some of the faster chip theorists -</htmltext>
<tokenext>and personal you .
The tireless [ amazingkreskin.com ] the fruitless we need to address is ( the group that dabblers .
In truth , And some of the faster chip theorists -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and personal you.
The tireless [amazingkreskin.com] the fruitless we need to address is( the group that dabblers.
In truth, And some of the faster chip theorists -</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828230</id>
	<title>Re:Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1263921000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the market failure? The Internet is the market and it has established a price of "free" for all content that can legally be redistributed.  Repeat after me: "Markets set prices. They do not determine what is available."  CBS obviously believes that the value of Jack Benny is more than "free", and it appears that they are not crazy to think so. What they want is some kind of compensation for having retained good-quality tapes for all these years instead of the third-generation kinescopes that are apparently available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the market failure ?
The Internet is the market and it has established a price of " free " for all content that can legally be redistributed .
Repeat after me : " Markets set prices .
They do not determine what is available .
" CBS obviously believes that the value of Jack Benny is more than " free " , and it appears that they are not crazy to think so .
What they want is some kind of compensation for having retained good-quality tapes for all these years instead of the third-generation kinescopes that are apparently available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the market failure?
The Internet is the market and it has established a price of "free" for all content that can legally be redistributed.
Repeat after me: "Markets set prices.
They do not determine what is available.
"  CBS obviously believes that the value of Jack Benny is more than "free", and it appears that they are not crazy to think so.
What they want is some kind of compensation for having retained good-quality tapes for all these years instead of the third-generation kinescopes that are apparently available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654</id>
	<title>Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263915060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Found something on Boing-Boing's comments which might make us take this with a grain of salt:
<br> <br>
<i>
Here (with his permission) is a comment from Stan Taffel, who is a media preservationist and posted this to the Association of Moving Image Archivists listserv (AMIA-L). According to Stan, this controversy has been orchestrated by a fan club person who sells copies of the shows. Stan also tells me he's just been speaking with a company who is trying to secure a license to release the shows. Again, I'm just reporting what others have said, and have no personal stake or opinion other than that these shows should be made available to those who fervently want to see them.<br> <br>
Stan's comment:<br>
"I have spoken to my source at CBS and am happy to report that the "hype" is just what it is; all hype.<br>
CBS is ready and willing to sub license any property (as they did with Studio One etc.) for a fee.<br>
Laura Leff, the "President" of the Jack Benny Fan Club she began a few years ago, is very good at <br>
generating P R and has done a very good job at starting a Facebook petition against CBS and getting <br>
articles and giving interviews pleading for the release of 25 Benny shows. She says that CBS has "locked" <br>
these films away and will not be preserved. This is not the case.<br>
The 25 Benny shows as well as the full run of the series is stored in state of the art facilities. The film elements <br>
are safe and in good shape. CBS is also aware of the fact that Ms. Leff has a library of many existing shows <br>
and charges for making copies; dupes of both copywritten and PD shows are offered from her website. <br> <br>

While I applaud her tenacity and love for Jack Benny (she organized a fine website and a convention a few <br>
years ago), it seems that the truth has been diluted and the actual state of the predicament has been reported <br>
in error. She is great at "self promoting". What it boils down to is this: She is a huge fan who just wants to <br>
have copies of the shows and has gone this route to try and obtain them. CBS doesn't know how she was <br>
"supervising" a transfer of one of the color shows as that is not her job. True, it was an NBC special and <br>
maybe she was invited to see a conversion but "supervising"? She is friends with Joan Benny (Jack's <br>
daughter) so perhaps that's how she was invited to see the inner workings. She has gained attention to her <br>
fan club and her plight, however misrepresented it is.<br> <br>
CBS is not the enemy here; they will sub contract The Jack Benny out. As these are supposedly P D shows<br>
 (and that's not definite) there are other sources to locate them and once they're out, anyone can dupe them <br>
and sell them for no fee. CBS isn't the only source for 16mm kinescopes. They even told her to try to find <br>
them through other avenues, fully aware she wants to add them to her "collection".<br>
Should these films be available - of course. However, business is business and CBS pays for the storage <br>
of these and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of elements and that's not cheap. To give copies to her <br>
for her archive is not so simple even if she pays for her copies. Maybe some company will come forward <br>
and these shows will be seen. Time will tell."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Found something on Boing-Boing 's comments which might make us take this with a grain of salt : Here ( with his permission ) is a comment from Stan Taffel , who is a media preservationist and posted this to the Association of Moving Image Archivists listserv ( AMIA-L ) .
According to Stan , this controversy has been orchestrated by a fan club person who sells copies of the shows .
Stan also tells me he 's just been speaking with a company who is trying to secure a license to release the shows .
Again , I 'm just reporting what others have said , and have no personal stake or opinion other than that these shows should be made available to those who fervently want to see them .
Stan 's comment : " I have spoken to my source at CBS and am happy to report that the " hype " is just what it is ; all hype .
CBS is ready and willing to sub license any property ( as they did with Studio One etc .
) for a fee .
Laura Leff , the " President " of the Jack Benny Fan Club she began a few years ago , is very good at generating P R and has done a very good job at starting a Facebook petition against CBS and getting articles and giving interviews pleading for the release of 25 Benny shows .
She says that CBS has " locked " these films away and will not be preserved .
This is not the case .
The 25 Benny shows as well as the full run of the series is stored in state of the art facilities .
The film elements are safe and in good shape .
CBS is also aware of the fact that Ms. Leff has a library of many existing shows and charges for making copies ; dupes of both copywritten and PD shows are offered from her website .
While I applaud her tenacity and love for Jack Benny ( she organized a fine website and a convention a few years ago ) , it seems that the truth has been diluted and the actual state of the predicament has been reported in error .
She is great at " self promoting " .
What it boils down to is this : She is a huge fan who just wants to have copies of the shows and has gone this route to try and obtain them .
CBS does n't know how she was " supervising " a transfer of one of the color shows as that is not her job .
True , it was an NBC special and maybe she was invited to see a conversion but " supervising " ?
She is friends with Joan Benny ( Jack 's daughter ) so perhaps that 's how she was invited to see the inner workings .
She has gained attention to her fan club and her plight , however misrepresented it is .
CBS is not the enemy here ; they will sub contract The Jack Benny out .
As these are supposedly P D shows ( and that 's not definite ) there are other sources to locate them and once they 're out , anyone can dupe them and sell them for no fee .
CBS is n't the only source for 16mm kinescopes .
They even told her to try to find them through other avenues , fully aware she wants to add them to her " collection " .
Should these films be available - of course .
However , business is business and CBS pays for the storage of these and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of elements and that 's not cheap .
To give copies to her for her archive is not so simple even if she pays for her copies .
Maybe some company will come forward and these shows will be seen .
Time will tell .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Found something on Boing-Boing's comments which might make us take this with a grain of salt:
 

Here (with his permission) is a comment from Stan Taffel, who is a media preservationist and posted this to the Association of Moving Image Archivists listserv (AMIA-L).
According to Stan, this controversy has been orchestrated by a fan club person who sells copies of the shows.
Stan also tells me he's just been speaking with a company who is trying to secure a license to release the shows.
Again, I'm just reporting what others have said, and have no personal stake or opinion other than that these shows should be made available to those who fervently want to see them.
Stan's comment:
"I have spoken to my source at CBS and am happy to report that the "hype" is just what it is; all hype.
CBS is ready and willing to sub license any property (as they did with Studio One etc.
) for a fee.
Laura Leff, the "President" of the Jack Benny Fan Club she began a few years ago, is very good at 
generating P R and has done a very good job at starting a Facebook petition against CBS and getting 
articles and giving interviews pleading for the release of 25 Benny shows.
She says that CBS has "locked" 
these films away and will not be preserved.
This is not the case.
The 25 Benny shows as well as the full run of the series is stored in state of the art facilities.
The film elements 
are safe and in good shape.
CBS is also aware of the fact that Ms. Leff has a library of many existing shows 
and charges for making copies; dupes of both copywritten and PD shows are offered from her website.
While I applaud her tenacity and love for Jack Benny (she organized a fine website and a convention a few 
years ago), it seems that the truth has been diluted and the actual state of the predicament has been reported 
in error.
She is great at "self promoting".
What it boils down to is this: She is a huge fan who just wants to 
have copies of the shows and has gone this route to try and obtain them.
CBS doesn't know how she was 
"supervising" a transfer of one of the color shows as that is not her job.
True, it was an NBC special and 
maybe she was invited to see a conversion but "supervising"?
She is friends with Joan Benny (Jack's 
daughter) so perhaps that's how she was invited to see the inner workings.
She has gained attention to her 
fan club and her plight, however misrepresented it is.
CBS is not the enemy here; they will sub contract The Jack Benny out.
As these are supposedly P D shows
 (and that's not definite) there are other sources to locate them and once they're out, anyone can dupe them 
and sell them for no fee.
CBS isn't the only source for 16mm kinescopes.
They even told her to try to find 
them through other avenues, fully aware she wants to add them to her "collection".
Should these films be available - of course.
However, business is business and CBS pays for the storage 
of these and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of elements and that's not cheap.
To give copies to her 
for her archive is not so simple even if she pays for her copies.
Maybe some company will come forward 
and these shows will be seen.
Time will tell.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827942</id>
	<title>Re:revoke ALL their copyrights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look doofus, you'll never get anywhere <i>not</i> playing their game; it's the only game in town, or didn't you notice. The thing to do is push for a grassroots boycott of their products. That's the only place they feel pain-in their wallets.</p><p>You don't pirate because you don't feel bad doing so, you pirate because you're lazy and you're weak. And they know it. They can read people like you like a dime novel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look doofus , you 'll never get anywhere not playing their game ; it 's the only game in town , or did n't you notice .
The thing to do is push for a grassroots boycott of their products .
That 's the only place they feel pain-in their wallets.You do n't pirate because you do n't feel bad doing so , you pirate because you 're lazy and you 're weak .
And they know it .
They can read people like you like a dime novel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look doofus, you'll never get anywhere not playing their game; it's the only game in town, or didn't you notice.
The thing to do is push for a grassroots boycott of their products.
That's the only place they feel pain-in their wallets.You don't pirate because you don't feel bad doing so, you pirate because you're lazy and you're weak.
And they know it.
They can read people like you like a dime novel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829624</id>
	<title>Re:revoke ALL their copyrights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's intellectual property. At the end of the day, nobody's really losing anything because you wouldn't have bought it in the first place. I figured pirates would be all over this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's intellectual property .
At the end of the day , nobody 's really losing anything because you would n't have bought it in the first place .
I figured pirates would be all over this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's intellectual property.
At the end of the day, nobody's really losing anything because you wouldn't have bought it in the first place.
I figured pirates would be all over this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828132</id>
	<title>Lies, Damned Lies And Hyperhype</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1263919920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is so much in the summary, the articles and the web pages associated with this that fall somewhere between hype and bald faced lies that I'm not going to waste my time picking it apart. Someone saw a sympathetic audience and played it. You've been played like Clapton's Strat and you made exactly the music they wanted you to. Too bad nobody saw fit to investigate any of this. Anyone that actually gave shit about anything more than the chance to spout off might have at least tried to contact any of the several broadcast museums like Paley Center, Museum of TV and Radio or Museum of Broadcast Communications.</p><p>Come on kids, try reconciling the fact that they've got these things locked in a vault with the accusation of "failing to preserve" and try to imagine the mental gymnastics required not to trip over that if you weren't already jumping head first into what you thought was yet another copyright law bashing. I'm astounded at how few bullshit meters got pegged by this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is so much in the summary , the articles and the web pages associated with this that fall somewhere between hype and bald faced lies that I 'm not going to waste my time picking it apart .
Someone saw a sympathetic audience and played it .
You 've been played like Clapton 's Strat and you made exactly the music they wanted you to .
Too bad nobody saw fit to investigate any of this .
Anyone that actually gave shit about anything more than the chance to spout off might have at least tried to contact any of the several broadcast museums like Paley Center , Museum of TV and Radio or Museum of Broadcast Communications.Come on kids , try reconciling the fact that they 've got these things locked in a vault with the accusation of " failing to preserve " and try to imagine the mental gymnastics required not to trip over that if you were n't already jumping head first into what you thought was yet another copyright law bashing .
I 'm astounded at how few bullshit meters got pegged by this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is so much in the summary, the articles and the web pages associated with this that fall somewhere between hype and bald faced lies that I'm not going to waste my time picking it apart.
Someone saw a sympathetic audience and played it.
You've been played like Clapton's Strat and you made exactly the music they wanted you to.
Too bad nobody saw fit to investigate any of this.
Anyone that actually gave shit about anything more than the chance to spout off might have at least tried to contact any of the several broadcast museums like Paley Center, Museum of TV and Radio or Museum of Broadcast Communications.Come on kids, try reconciling the fact that they've got these things locked in a vault with the accusation of "failing to preserve" and try to imagine the mental gymnastics required not to trip over that if you weren't already jumping head first into what you thought was yet another copyright law bashing.
I'm astounded at how few bullshit meters got pegged by this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30840476</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263994200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we can still find him and pull off a Weekend at Bernie's on those exec's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we can still find him and pull off a Weekend at Bernie 's on those exec 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we can still find him and pull off a Weekend at Bernie's on those exec's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830514</id>
	<title>Fast forward 50 years; NBC vault</title>
	<author>pbrooks100</author>
	<datestamp>1263993240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Archivist: 'These Conan O'Brien DVDs of the Tonight Show are part of our national history; part of our culture! Its a miracle that these discs have lasted this long. We've got to preserve this stuff!'</p><p>NBC President Jay Leno (consisting of head in jar): 'Who is this Conan guy, and why should I care?'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Archivist : 'These Conan O'Brien DVDs of the Tonight Show are part of our national history ; part of our culture !
Its a miracle that these discs have lasted this long .
We 've got to preserve this stuff !
'NBC President Jay Leno ( consisting of head in jar ) : 'Who is this Conan guy , and why should I care ?
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Archivist: 'These Conan O'Brien DVDs of the Tonight Show are part of our national history; part of our culture!
Its a miracle that these discs have lasted this long.
We've got to preserve this stuff!
'NBC President Jay Leno (consisting of head in jar): 'Who is this Conan guy, and why should I care?
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827746</id>
	<title>Re:Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing</title>
	<author>Alaren</author>
	<datestamp>1263915840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand that things like this get distorted along the way.</p><blockquote><div><p>However, business is business and CBS pays for the storage of these and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of elements and that's not cheap.</p></div> </blockquote><p>However, this line here is the real crux of the matter, and I think reflects a market failure.  Because these shows are in the public domain (I haven't verified this, but I'm taking the claim at face value), CBS can't see a way to profit from them--if they release these episodes on DVD, there will be nothing illegal about ripping and sharing them.  So CBS continues to spend money preserving them, insisting that (therefore) letting someone release them without charging for it makes no "business" sense.

</p><p>But I don't see a price tag there.  Would it sound too much like demanding a ransom?  Strictly speaking, the copyright to those films is "ours."  As in, everybody's.  But we can't make copies because the only physical media is "theirs," and no one has come along with a high enough bid to pry it free from their grasp.

</p><p>Sounds like a market failure to me.  Just another way in which well-intentioned copyright laws create bizarre cultural difficulties.  Shame on CBS, regardless of this calm but weasel-worded comment suggests.  The easy way out is not to say "business is business," but to just release the episodes to thepiratebay or something and be done with it.  They can even stop wasting money preserving the episodes after that, if they want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that things like this get distorted along the way.However , business is business and CBS pays for the storage of these and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of elements and that 's not cheap .
However , this line here is the real crux of the matter , and I think reflects a market failure .
Because these shows are in the public domain ( I have n't verified this , but I 'm taking the claim at face value ) , CBS ca n't see a way to profit from them--if they release these episodes on DVD , there will be nothing illegal about ripping and sharing them .
So CBS continues to spend money preserving them , insisting that ( therefore ) letting someone release them without charging for it makes no " business " sense .
But I do n't see a price tag there .
Would it sound too much like demanding a ransom ?
Strictly speaking , the copyright to those films is " ours .
" As in , everybody 's .
But we ca n't make copies because the only physical media is " theirs , " and no one has come along with a high enough bid to pry it free from their grasp .
Sounds like a market failure to me .
Just another way in which well-intentioned copyright laws create bizarre cultural difficulties .
Shame on CBS , regardless of this calm but weasel-worded comment suggests .
The easy way out is not to say " business is business , " but to just release the episodes to thepiratebay or something and be done with it .
They can even stop wasting money preserving the episodes after that , if they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that things like this get distorted along the way.However, business is business and CBS pays for the storage of these and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of elements and that's not cheap.
However, this line here is the real crux of the matter, and I think reflects a market failure.
Because these shows are in the public domain (I haven't verified this, but I'm taking the claim at face value), CBS can't see a way to profit from them--if they release these episodes on DVD, there will be nothing illegal about ripping and sharing them.
So CBS continues to spend money preserving them, insisting that (therefore) letting someone release them without charging for it makes no "business" sense.
But I don't see a price tag there.
Would it sound too much like demanding a ransom?
Strictly speaking, the copyright to those films is "ours.
"  As in, everybody's.
But we can't make copies because the only physical media is "theirs," and no one has come along with a high enough bid to pry it free from their grasp.
Sounds like a market failure to me.
Just another way in which well-intentioned copyright laws create bizarre cultural difficulties.
Shame on CBS, regardless of this calm but weasel-worded comment suggests.
The easy way out is not to say "business is business," but to just release the episodes to thepiratebay or something and be done with it.
They can even stop wasting money preserving the episodes after that, if they want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827886</id>
	<title>Who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263917460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who the fuck is Jack Benny, and why the fuck should I care that CBS has committed the atrocity of refusing to "preserve" his films?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the fuck is Jack Benny , and why the fuck should I care that CBS has committed the atrocity of refusing to " preserve " his films ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the fuck is Jack Benny, and why the fuck should I care that CBS has committed the atrocity of refusing to "preserve" his films?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600</id>
	<title>revoke ALL their copyrights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, refusing to allow this public domain work to be restored at no cost to them means they are not holding up their end of the copyright bargain and so they should now lose their rights and protection under said laws. There's a social contract at work and it's stupid acts like this and the Sonny Bono perpetual protection of Mickey Mouse Act that make me have no qualms about "pirating" material when I feel like it. If they don't want to play nice then I see no reason to play their game at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , refusing to allow this public domain work to be restored at no cost to them means they are not holding up their end of the copyright bargain and so they should now lose their rights and protection under said laws .
There 's a social contract at work and it 's stupid acts like this and the Sonny Bono perpetual protection of Mickey Mouse Act that make me have no qualms about " pirating " material when I feel like it .
If they do n't want to play nice then I see no reason to play their game at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, refusing to allow this public domain work to be restored at no cost to them means they are not holding up their end of the copyright bargain and so they should now lose their rights and protection under said laws.
There's a social contract at work and it's stupid acts like this and the Sonny Bono perpetual protection of Mickey Mouse Act that make me have no qualms about "pirating" material when I feel like it.
If they don't want to play nice then I see no reason to play their game at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827536</id>
	<title>Management Types...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263913740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do these people run things?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do these people run things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do these people run things?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30853130</id>
	<title>Re:Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264074060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh PLEASE. Leff has been running her fan club for more than thirty years, and she was at CBS as a representative of the Jack Benny Estate, controlled by Joan Benny, Jack's daughter. Read her rebuttal above.</p><p>If you dig around, you'll find that the person who has nastygrammed her seems to have a stake in this too, placing himself in line to get these DVDs out for profit. Interesting...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh PLEASE .
Leff has been running her fan club for more than thirty years , and she was at CBS as a representative of the Jack Benny Estate , controlled by Joan Benny , Jack 's daughter .
Read her rebuttal above.If you dig around , you 'll find that the person who has nastygrammed her seems to have a stake in this too , placing himself in line to get these DVDs out for profit .
Interesting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh PLEASE.
Leff has been running her fan club for more than thirty years, and she was at CBS as a representative of the Jack Benny Estate, controlled by Joan Benny, Jack's daughter.
Read her rebuttal above.If you dig around, you'll find that the person who has nastygrammed her seems to have a stake in this too, placing himself in line to get these DVDs out for profit.
Interesting...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828514</id>
	<title>Re:Well!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263923520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those films can't be in the public domain.  They're only 39 years old.</p></div><p>Perhaps CBS is just THINKING IT OVER!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those films ca n't be in the public domain .
They 're only 39 years old.Perhaps CBS is just THINKING IT OVER !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those films can't be in the public domain.
They're only 39 years old.Perhaps CBS is just THINKING IT OVER!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30834038</id>
	<title>Re:Benny is great</title>
	<author>MoeDumb</author>
	<datestamp>1264010940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some CBS insider ought to copy the tapes and upload 'em all to Usenet. Should said insider be reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. may I humbly suggest a.b.multimedia vintage-tv ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some CBS insider ought to copy the tapes and upload 'em all to Usenet .
Should said insider be reading / .
may I humbly suggest a.b.multimedia vintage-tv ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some CBS insider ought to copy the tapes and upload 'em all to Usenet.
Should said insider be reading /.
may I humbly suggest a.b.multimedia vintage-tv ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30836850</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1263979080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always took the insult "mother fucker" to imply that one was fucking one's own mother (since I don't see how it would be an insult otherwise).</p><p>In that case I say call em dog fuckers.  That we they get to be dog fuckers, mother fuckers, and a son of a bitch all at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always took the insult " mother fucker " to imply that one was fucking one 's own mother ( since I do n't see how it would be an insult otherwise ) .In that case I say call em dog fuckers .
That we they get to be dog fuckers , mother fuckers , and a son of a bitch all at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always took the insult "mother fucker" to imply that one was fucking one's own mother (since I don't see how it would be an insult otherwise).In that case I say call em dog fuckers.
That we they get to be dog fuckers, mother fuckers, and a son of a bitch all at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827866</id>
	<title>Not so fast</title>
	<author>S-100</author>
	<datestamp>1263917100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because a performance is in the public domain doesn't mean that the physical master tapes cannot be privately owned and controlled.  I suspect that part of CBS's reluctance to release the programs is the less-than-politically-correct portrayal of Rochester, just as Disney has buried some if its work in its vaults (e.g. Song of the South). Before you condemn them all as a bunch of idiots, releasing the masters is a zero-gain proposition for the owners, and there is a potential downside that it's their duty to consider.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because a performance is in the public domain does n't mean that the physical master tapes can not be privately owned and controlled .
I suspect that part of CBS 's reluctance to release the programs is the less-than-politically-correct portrayal of Rochester , just as Disney has buried some if its work in its vaults ( e.g .
Song of the South ) .
Before you condemn them all as a bunch of idiots , releasing the masters is a zero-gain proposition for the owners , and there is a potential downside that it 's their duty to consider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because a performance is in the public domain doesn't mean that the physical master tapes cannot be privately owned and controlled.
I suspect that part of CBS's reluctance to release the programs is the less-than-politically-correct portrayal of Rochester, just as Disney has buried some if its work in its vaults (e.g.
Song of the South).
Before you condemn them all as a bunch of idiots, releasing the masters is a zero-gain proposition for the owners, and there is a potential downside that it's their duty to consider.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828006</id>
	<title>Re:We are te public ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, that will work. The *work* is public domain. That particular copy, belongs to them. Can I demand you send me all the public domain DVDs that you own?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that will work .
The * work * is public domain .
That particular copy , belongs to them .
Can I demand you send me all the public domain DVDs that you own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that will work.
The *work* is public domain.
That particular copy, belongs to them.
Can I demand you send me all the public domain DVDs that you own?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830394</id>
	<title>Re:revoke ALL their copyrights</title>
	<author>Narcogen</author>
	<datestamp>1263991680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, refusing to allow this public domain work to be restored at no cost to them means they are not holding up their end of the copyright bargain and so they should now lose their rights and protection under said laws. There's a social contract at work and it's stupid acts like this and the Sonny Bono perpetual protection of Mickey Mouse Act that make me have no qualms about "pirating" material when I feel like it. If they don't want to play nice then I see no reason to play their game at all.</p></div><p>First, there are no copyrights for them to lose; these works are in the public domain, which is the entire point of the article.</p><p>Second, I think you're alleging some corresponding set of responsibilities that constitute a "copyright bargain" that would require forfeiture of rights under certain circumstances, essentially mandating distribution. This is pretty insane. Plenty of books get options sold for movies that are never made; contracts may require rights to be reverted if the movie is not made, but this is handled on a case by case basis, it's not statutory. I honestly don't see how the market would work if distribution of all works a publisher holds the rights to becomes mandatory.</p><p>There are no intellectual property rights subject to discussion here anymore; the works are in the public domain.</p><p>What is at stake is CBS' right to dispose of its physical property as it sees fit, and not be compelled by rightsholders whose rights have expired or by audiences to do anything particular with it. Sure, it'd be nice if they did so, but legally I don't think anybody's got a leg to stand on here. Others not "playing nice" does not excuse you, or anyone else, from "playing by the rules". CBS is playing by the rules here. The films are in their possession and there's no basis for compelling them to do anything with them. You can't pirate these works to gain the access you feel you deserve since they have never been broadcast; presumably the copies CBS has are the only in existence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , refusing to allow this public domain work to be restored at no cost to them means they are not holding up their end of the copyright bargain and so they should now lose their rights and protection under said laws .
There 's a social contract at work and it 's stupid acts like this and the Sonny Bono perpetual protection of Mickey Mouse Act that make me have no qualms about " pirating " material when I feel like it .
If they do n't want to play nice then I see no reason to play their game at all.First , there are no copyrights for them to lose ; these works are in the public domain , which is the entire point of the article.Second , I think you 're alleging some corresponding set of responsibilities that constitute a " copyright bargain " that would require forfeiture of rights under certain circumstances , essentially mandating distribution .
This is pretty insane .
Plenty of books get options sold for movies that are never made ; contracts may require rights to be reverted if the movie is not made , but this is handled on a case by case basis , it 's not statutory .
I honestly do n't see how the market would work if distribution of all works a publisher holds the rights to becomes mandatory.There are no intellectual property rights subject to discussion here anymore ; the works are in the public domain.What is at stake is CBS ' right to dispose of its physical property as it sees fit , and not be compelled by rightsholders whose rights have expired or by audiences to do anything particular with it .
Sure , it 'd be nice if they did so , but legally I do n't think anybody 's got a leg to stand on here .
Others not " playing nice " does not excuse you , or anyone else , from " playing by the rules " .
CBS is playing by the rules here .
The films are in their possession and there 's no basis for compelling them to do anything with them .
You ca n't pirate these works to gain the access you feel you deserve since they have never been broadcast ; presumably the copies CBS has are the only in existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, refusing to allow this public domain work to be restored at no cost to them means they are not holding up their end of the copyright bargain and so they should now lose their rights and protection under said laws.
There's a social contract at work and it's stupid acts like this and the Sonny Bono perpetual protection of Mickey Mouse Act that make me have no qualms about "pirating" material when I feel like it.
If they don't want to play nice then I see no reason to play their game at all.First, there are no copyrights for them to lose; these works are in the public domain, which is the entire point of the article.Second, I think you're alleging some corresponding set of responsibilities that constitute a "copyright bargain" that would require forfeiture of rights under certain circumstances, essentially mandating distribution.
This is pretty insane.
Plenty of books get options sold for movies that are never made; contracts may require rights to be reverted if the movie is not made, but this is handled on a case by case basis, it's not statutory.
I honestly don't see how the market would work if distribution of all works a publisher holds the rights to becomes mandatory.There are no intellectual property rights subject to discussion here anymore; the works are in the public domain.What is at stake is CBS' right to dispose of its physical property as it sees fit, and not be compelled by rightsholders whose rights have expired or by audiences to do anything particular with it.
Sure, it'd be nice if they did so, but legally I don't think anybody's got a leg to stand on here.
Others not "playing nice" does not excuse you, or anyone else, from "playing by the rules".
CBS is playing by the rules here.
The films are in their possession and there's no basis for compelling them to do anything with them.
You can't pirate these works to gain the access you feel you deserve since they have never been broadcast; presumably the copies CBS has are the only in existence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829460</id>
	<title>There is change afoot at CBS</title>
	<author>jskline</author>
	<datestamp>1263980520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just more of the same fundamental change going on at CBS. In those days, we were an open; in your face with our fundamental beliefs nation and it was reflected in the broadcasting. CBS along with NBC is on a campaign to remove some of the religious toned stuff that influences what is broadcast. They're not apparently looking to censor religious shows, but the tones that it influences in their shows that they air now. That's a house of cards that will come down eventually; and may already be showing signs. NBC has almost nothing left in it for viewers if you rely solely on the polls. Their news departments have pretty much collapsed them. CBS is hanging on because it has some talent still and they are what is keeping them afloat. It sure isn't Katie Kouric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just more of the same fundamental change going on at CBS .
In those days , we were an open ; in your face with our fundamental beliefs nation and it was reflected in the broadcasting .
CBS along with NBC is on a campaign to remove some of the religious toned stuff that influences what is broadcast .
They 're not apparently looking to censor religious shows , but the tones that it influences in their shows that they air now .
That 's a house of cards that will come down eventually ; and may already be showing signs .
NBC has almost nothing left in it for viewers if you rely solely on the polls .
Their news departments have pretty much collapsed them .
CBS is hanging on because it has some talent still and they are what is keeping them afloat .
It sure is n't Katie Kouric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just more of the same fundamental change going on at CBS.
In those days, we were an open; in your face with our fundamental beliefs nation and it was reflected in the broadcasting.
CBS along with NBC is on a campaign to remove some of the religious toned stuff that influences what is broadcast.
They're not apparently looking to censor religious shows, but the tones that it influences in their shows that they air now.
That's a house of cards that will come down eventually; and may already be showing signs.
NBC has almost nothing left in it for viewers if you rely solely on the polls.
Their news departments have pretty much collapsed them.
CBS is hanging on because it has some talent still and they are what is keeping them afloat.
It sure isn't Katie Kouric.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828472</id>
	<title>sadly, this is an example FOR copyright</title>
	<author>leehwtsohg</author>
	<datestamp>1263923100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has almost nothing to do with limiting copyright, quite the opposite. It is more of an example of what things would be like without copyright. Try to make a good copy of the Mona Lisa. Museums often don't allow you to bring a camera with a tripod to the museum, and for exactly this reason. They have the original copy, and have no good protection of copies being made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has almost nothing to do with limiting copyright , quite the opposite .
It is more of an example of what things would be like without copyright .
Try to make a good copy of the Mona Lisa .
Museums often do n't allow you to bring a camera with a tripod to the museum , and for exactly this reason .
They have the original copy , and have no good protection of copies being made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has almost nothing to do with limiting copyright, quite the opposite.
It is more of an example of what things would be like without copyright.
Try to make a good copy of the Mona Lisa.
Museums often don't allow you to bring a camera with a tripod to the museum, and for exactly this reason.
They have the original copy, and have no good protection of copies being made.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827890</id>
	<title>Re:Management Types...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263917520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mumsy and Dadsy bought them MBAs at Ivy League schools.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mumsy and Dadsy bought them MBAs at Ivy League schools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mumsy and Dadsy bought them MBAs at Ivy League schools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828040</id>
	<title>Re:We are te public ...</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1263919020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... in 'public domain'. If CBS denys us access to our property, we should just file a thrft report with the local police department.</p></div><p>Uh...wtf? I don't keep up on the copyrights of everything I own, but I suspect you might not like it if the police charged into house and confiscated your non-copyrighted photos and videos. I sure wouldn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... in 'public domain' .
If CBS denys us access to our property , we should just file a thrft report with the local police department.Uh...wtf ?
I do n't keep up on the copyrights of everything I own , but I suspect you might not like it if the police charged into house and confiscated your non-copyrighted photos and videos .
I sure would n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... in 'public domain'.
If CBS denys us access to our property, we should just file a thrft report with the local police department.Uh...wtf?
I don't keep up on the copyrights of everything I own, but I suspect you might not like it if the police charged into house and confiscated your non-copyrighted photos and videos.
I sure wouldn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827642</id>
	<title>Die CBS Die</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1263914760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I don't mean The CBS The!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I do n't mean The CBS The !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I don't mean The CBS The!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30831524</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>thedudethedude</author>
	<datestamp>1264001220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt;The Republican party?

Have you watched CBS news?  CBS couldn't fail more as an org. if they tried...</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The Republican party ?
Have you watched CBS news ?
CBS could n't fail more as an org .
if they tried.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;The Republican party?
Have you watched CBS news?
CBS couldn't fail more as an org.
if they tried...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30835534</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1264016760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have they actually said that? Not an argument they'd want to share publicly even if that's their actual motivation. It's also bad business: free Jack Benny  would increase interest in a comedian few people under 35 have heard of, and that world increase the value of material that's still under copyright. Though CBS may not see that.</p><p>I think the main motivation is the legal thicket that's grown up around all content, even public domain.  Some movies that have been technically public domain  for decades are effectively copyrighted again by pettifoggery over embedded content, like music.</p><p>This doesn't excuse CBS, which did as much to create this mess as anybody. Bat really, the whole entertainment  industry's to blame, not just CBS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have they actually said that ?
Not an argument they 'd want to share publicly even if that 's their actual motivation .
It 's also bad business : free Jack Benny would increase interest in a comedian few people under 35 have heard of , and that world increase the value of material that 's still under copyright .
Though CBS may not see that.I think the main motivation is the legal thicket that 's grown up around all content , even public domain .
Some movies that have been technically public domain for decades are effectively copyrighted again by pettifoggery over embedded content , like music.This does n't excuse CBS , which did as much to create this mess as anybody .
Bat really , the whole entertainment industry 's to blame , not just CBS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have they actually said that?
Not an argument they'd want to share publicly even if that's their actual motivation.
It's also bad business: free Jack Benny  would increase interest in a comedian few people under 35 have heard of, and that world increase the value of material that's still under copyright.
Though CBS may not see that.I think the main motivation is the legal thicket that's grown up around all content, even public domain.
Some movies that have been technically public domain  for decades are effectively copyrighted again by pettifoggery over embedded content, like music.This doesn't excuse CBS, which did as much to create this mess as anybody.
Bat really, the whole entertainment  industry's to blame, not just CBS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827990</id>
	<title>Re:Eminent domain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Perhaps the federal government could appropriate the masters via eminent domain and make them available through the Library of Congress.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, the lobbyists will explain to the people in government that if they can't copyright it and make money off it, <em>nobody</em> gets it because it's their property after all and they can do what they want with it.  It's not like they have a legal obligation to preservation of history and culture.</p><p>What is the point of buying copyright laws if you can't be sure to be able to release something in the public domain under new copyright, and then sell it on DVD and license it to Coca Cola or Starbucks?</p><p>If they let someone pay for the digitization and then release it into the public domain, how would they make money off <em>that</em>?  CBS is a corporation, this is an asset.  It sucks, but I'm hardly surprised by this.</p><p>Cheers</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the federal government could appropriate the masters via eminent domain and make them available through the Library of Congress.No , the lobbyists will explain to the people in government that if they ca n't copyright it and make money off it , nobody gets it because it 's their property after all and they can do what they want with it .
It 's not like they have a legal obligation to preservation of history and culture.What is the point of buying copyright laws if you ca n't be sure to be able to release something in the public domain under new copyright , and then sell it on DVD and license it to Coca Cola or Starbucks ? If they let someone pay for the digitization and then release it into the public domain , how would they make money off that ?
CBS is a corporation , this is an asset .
It sucks , but I 'm hardly surprised by this.Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the federal government could appropriate the masters via eminent domain and make them available through the Library of Congress.No, the lobbyists will explain to the people in government that if they can't copyright it and make money off it, nobody gets it because it's their property after all and they can do what they want with it.
It's not like they have a legal obligation to preservation of history and culture.What is the point of buying copyright laws if you can't be sure to be able to release something in the public domain under new copyright, and then sell it on DVD and license it to Coca Cola or Starbucks?If they let someone pay for the digitization and then release it into the public domain, how would they make money off that?
CBS is a corporation, this is an asset.
It sucks, but I'm hardly surprised by this.Cheers
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827808</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263916500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It said that she charges for making copies of them. Sounds to me like she is looking to make some money off of them without having to invest anything, or not very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It said that she charges for making copies of them .
Sounds to me like she is looking to make some money off of them without having to invest anything , or not very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It said that she charges for making copies of them.
Sounds to me like she is looking to make some money off of them without having to invest anything, or not very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829534</id>
	<title>Re:While the material may not be protected...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263981480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NBC is looking for some content. Benny might do better than the Jay Leno show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NBC is looking for some content .
Benny might do better than the Jay Leno show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NBC is looking for some content.
Benny might do better than the Jay Leno show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828144</id>
	<title>Re:We are te public ...</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1263919980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was unreleased, therefore it's private property.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was unreleased , therefore it 's private property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was unreleased, therefore it's private property.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830228</id>
	<title>Re:revoke ALL their copyrights</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1263989880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are confusing public domain with physical property.
<br> <br>
There is no 'their end of the bargain'. The tapes themselves are theirs. End of story. Why should anyone other than them have any rights to something they own?
<br> <br>
Should I be able to go into your 80+ year old house, spend a while taking measurements and use some equipment that I say is 'unlikely to cause permenent damage'? Should I be able to demand you send me the heirlooms your grandmother left you so I can catalogue them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are confusing public domain with physical property .
There is no 'their end of the bargain' .
The tapes themselves are theirs .
End of story .
Why should anyone other than them have any rights to something they own ?
Should I be able to go into your 80 + year old house , spend a while taking measurements and use some equipment that I say is 'unlikely to cause permenent damage ' ?
Should I be able to demand you send me the heirlooms your grandmother left you so I can catalogue them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are confusing public domain with physical property.
There is no 'their end of the bargain'.
The tapes themselves are theirs.
End of story.
Why should anyone other than them have any rights to something they own?
Should I be able to go into your 80+ year old house, spend a while taking measurements and use some equipment that I say is 'unlikely to cause permenent damage'?
Should I be able to demand you send me the heirlooms your grandmother left you so I can catalogue them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828224</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263920820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Who cares what CBS want? Pay the janitor to make a copy of the tapes.</p><p>Public domain == copying is allowed by *any* member of the public.  That means any member of archive staff, or any visitor to the archives can do it."</p><p>No.  You are completely misinformed, and your comment is not insightful.</p><p>You can't (for example) borrow my copy of [insert copy of out-of-copyright book here] in order to make a copy, because (for example) I'm concerned that you will destroy the binding in the process.  That copy of the book is *my* property, to do with as I wish, including leaving it on my shelf in my house under lock-and-key where you can't ever get it.  I am under no obligation to loan it to you in order that you can copy it.  The public domain as it applies to copyright means that *should* you get access to my copy or someone else's of the same work, then you can copy and distribute it with no repercussions for doing so.  Access to the work is a different matter that is not covered by copyright <i>at all</i>.  Maybe I'll be nice and let you work from my copy, but I don't have to be nice, and neither does CBS.  Furthermore, based on what other people have reported, the article is rather misleading anyway, and CBS probably isn't the problem (see other posts).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Who cares what CBS want ?
Pay the janitor to make a copy of the tapes.Public domain = = copying is allowed by * any * member of the public .
That means any member of archive staff , or any visitor to the archives can do it. " No .
You are completely misinformed , and your comment is not insightful.You ca n't ( for example ) borrow my copy of [ insert copy of out-of-copyright book here ] in order to make a copy , because ( for example ) I 'm concerned that you will destroy the binding in the process .
That copy of the book is * my * property , to do with as I wish , including leaving it on my shelf in my house under lock-and-key where you ca n't ever get it .
I am under no obligation to loan it to you in order that you can copy it .
The public domain as it applies to copyright means that * should * you get access to my copy or someone else 's of the same work , then you can copy and distribute it with no repercussions for doing so .
Access to the work is a different matter that is not covered by copyright at all .
Maybe I 'll be nice and let you work from my copy , but I do n't have to be nice , and neither does CBS .
Furthermore , based on what other people have reported , the article is rather misleading anyway , and CBS probably is n't the problem ( see other posts ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Who cares what CBS want?
Pay the janitor to make a copy of the tapes.Public domain == copying is allowed by *any* member of the public.
That means any member of archive staff, or any visitor to the archives can do it."No.
You are completely misinformed, and your comment is not insightful.You can't (for example) borrow my copy of [insert copy of out-of-copyright book here] in order to make a copy, because (for example) I'm concerned that you will destroy the binding in the process.
That copy of the book is *my* property, to do with as I wish, including leaving it on my shelf in my house under lock-and-key where you can't ever get it.
I am under no obligation to loan it to you in order that you can copy it.
The public domain as it applies to copyright means that *should* you get access to my copy or someone else's of the same work, then you can copy and distribute it with no repercussions for doing so.
Access to the work is a different matter that is not covered by copyright at all.
Maybe I'll be nice and let you work from my copy, but I don't have to be nice, and neither does CBS.
Furthermore, based on what other people have reported, the article is rather misleading anyway, and CBS probably isn't the problem (see other posts).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828438</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect Example</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1263922740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The works were never released. What you are asking is the equivalent of breaking into my private residence and gaining access to my grandfather's diaries. They were copyrighted by him the moment he wrote them, and that copyright is now expired. But you can't have them. No sir, fuck off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The works were never released .
What you are asking is the equivalent of breaking into my private residence and gaining access to my grandfather 's diaries .
They were copyrighted by him the moment he wrote them , and that copyright is now expired .
But you ca n't have them .
No sir , fuck off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The works were never released.
What you are asking is the equivalent of breaking into my private residence and gaining access to my grandfather's diaries.
They were copyrighted by him the moment he wrote them, and that copyright is now expired.
But you can't have them.
No sir, fuck off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30838886</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263986760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are looking at this the wrong way. More like "What kind of people must these people be for blatant insults to them to be taken in such a way?"</p><p>You call a woman who kills her own kids a psycho bitch, it will probably get modded as informative or insightful.<br>You call a white man who kills a black man for no other reason than he black a racist bigot who needs to be sterilized before he can pollute our gene pool, it will probably get modded as informative or insightful.<br>You call a black man who shoots another person to death in a home invasion a nigger, it will probably get modded as informative or insightful.</p><p>Same deal with this people, you act like something and then get called for acting in such a way, it kinda earned the moderation points as that is what they were being at that time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are looking at this the wrong way .
More like " What kind of people must these people be for blatant insults to them to be taken in such a way ?
" You call a woman who kills her own kids a psycho bitch , it will probably get modded as informative or insightful.You call a white man who kills a black man for no other reason than he black a racist bigot who needs to be sterilized before he can pollute our gene pool , it will probably get modded as informative or insightful.You call a black man who shoots another person to death in a home invasion a nigger , it will probably get modded as informative or insightful.Same deal with this people , you act like something and then get called for acting in such a way , it kinda earned the moderation points as that is what they were being at that time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are looking at this the wrong way.
More like "What kind of people must these people be for blatant insults to them to be taken in such a way?
"You call a woman who kills her own kids a psycho bitch, it will probably get modded as informative or insightful.You call a white man who kills a black man for no other reason than he black a racist bigot who needs to be sterilized before he can pollute our gene pool, it will probably get modded as informative or insightful.You call a black man who shoots another person to death in a home invasion a nigger, it will probably get modded as informative or insightful.Same deal with this people, you act like something and then get called for acting in such a way, it kinda earned the moderation points as that is what they were being at that time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830016</id>
	<title>CBS online feedback</title>
	<author>Dorsai65</author>
	<datestamp>1263987360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For however much good it'll do, here's the link to <a href="http://www.cbs.com/info/user\_services/fb\_global\_form.php" title="cbs.com">CBS online feedback/complaint form</a> [cbs.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>For however much good it 'll do , here 's the link to CBS online feedback/complaint form [ cbs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For however much good it'll do, here's the link to CBS online feedback/complaint form [cbs.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829446</id>
	<title>Inaccurate heading</title>
	<author>BigBadBus</author>
	<datestamp>1263980400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The heading of this news story makes it sound as if the Jack Benny episodes were about to be disposed of, whereas this is not the case. They are being preserved and stored, albeit not "preserved" in a digital sense. The comments made by <a href="http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/2010/01/cbs-nixes-unearthed-jack-benny.php" title="tvweek.com">Film Preservationist</a> [tvweek.com] are an important commentary on this case. As for other TV luminaries being unable to view their own creations, there are precedents on this side of the pond. Peter Cook, I read, wanted to see some of his earlier BBC series but wasn't allowed. Later he found out they had been wiped, and I get the feeling that this was after his request as he offered to pay for copies. The same applies to another celebrity (Sandy Shaw?) who wanted copies of her shows, which were wiped pretty damn quick after her request. I've been following the hunt for missing TV for some time, and a write-up is <a href="http://www.paullee.com/drwho/TVhunt.html" title="paullee.com">here</a> [paullee.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The heading of this news story makes it sound as if the Jack Benny episodes were about to be disposed of , whereas this is not the case .
They are being preserved and stored , albeit not " preserved " in a digital sense .
The comments made by Film Preservationist [ tvweek.com ] are an important commentary on this case .
As for other TV luminaries being unable to view their own creations , there are precedents on this side of the pond .
Peter Cook , I read , wanted to see some of his earlier BBC series but was n't allowed .
Later he found out they had been wiped , and I get the feeling that this was after his request as he offered to pay for copies .
The same applies to another celebrity ( Sandy Shaw ?
) who wanted copies of her shows , which were wiped pretty damn quick after her request .
I 've been following the hunt for missing TV for some time , and a write-up is here [ paullee.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The heading of this news story makes it sound as if the Jack Benny episodes were about to be disposed of, whereas this is not the case.
They are being preserved and stored, albeit not "preserved" in a digital sense.
The comments made by Film Preservationist [tvweek.com] are an important commentary on this case.
As for other TV luminaries being unable to view their own creations, there are precedents on this side of the pond.
Peter Cook, I read, wanted to see some of his earlier BBC series but wasn't allowed.
Later he found out they had been wiped, and I get the feeling that this was after his request as he offered to pay for copies.
The same applies to another celebrity (Sandy Shaw?
) who wanted copies of her shows, which were wiped pretty damn quick after her request.
I've been following the hunt for missing TV for some time, and a write-up is here [paullee.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827638</id>
	<title>We are te public ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1263914700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... in 'public domain'. If CBS denys us access to our property, we should just file a thrft report with the local police department.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... in 'public domain' .
If CBS denys us access to our property , we should just file a thrft report with the local police department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... in 'public domain'.
If CBS denys us access to our property, we should just file a thrft report with the local police department.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827904</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1263917700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares what CBS want? Pay the janitor to make a copy of the tapes.
<p>
Public domain == copying is allowed by *any* member of the public.
That means any member of archive staff, or any visitor to the archives can
do it.
</p><p>
The only thing that *must* be watched for is not to destroy any of CBS's property during the copying. So it's probably best to pay someone who has the technical qualifications, or they could be charged with destroying property.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares what CBS want ?
Pay the janitor to make a copy of the tapes .
Public domain = = copying is allowed by * any * member of the public .
That means any member of archive staff , or any visitor to the archives can do it .
The only thing that * must * be watched for is not to destroy any of CBS 's property during the copying .
So it 's probably best to pay someone who has the technical qualifications , or they could be charged with destroying property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares what CBS want?
Pay the janitor to make a copy of the tapes.
Public domain == copying is allowed by *any* member of the public.
That means any member of archive staff, or any visitor to the archives can
do it.
The only thing that *must* be watched for is not to destroy any of CBS's property during the copying.
So it's probably best to pay someone who has the technical qualifications, or they could be charged with destroying property.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827850</id>
	<title>How could they..</title>
	<author>cyberzephyr</author>
	<datestamp>1263916920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How could they drop one of the most important people on TV?  hmmmm.</p><p>Even the historical record would be of value 50 years later.  I'm sad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How could they drop one of the most important people on TV ?
hmmmm.Even the historical record would be of value 50 years later .
I 'm sad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How could they drop one of the most important people on TV?
hmmmm.Even the historical record would be of value 50 years later.
I'm sad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830874</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is such a great site. A bunch of adolescents sitting around bickering about politics and Benny Hill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is such a great site .
A bunch of adolescents sitting around bickering about politics and Benny Hill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is such a great site.
A bunch of adolescents sitting around bickering about politics and Benny Hill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827986</id>
	<title>Re:Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1263918540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, this line here is the real crux of the matter, and I think reflects a market failure.</p></div><p>There's nothing 'market' about copyright: it would not exist without government and is entirely a government failure.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Because these shows are in the public domain (I haven't verified this, but I'm taking the claim at face value), CBS can't see a way to profit from them--if they release these episodes on DVD, there will be nothing illegal about ripping and sharing them.</p></div><p>I don't believe that's true: perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe that CBS would have copyright on the DVD even if the shows on it are public domain... anyone else with a copy of the original show would be allowed to make their own DVD, but not to copy one that CBS created.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , this line here is the real crux of the matter , and I think reflects a market failure.There 's nothing 'market ' about copyright : it would not exist without government and is entirely a government failure.Because these shows are in the public domain ( I have n't verified this , but I 'm taking the claim at face value ) , CBS ca n't see a way to profit from them--if they release these episodes on DVD , there will be nothing illegal about ripping and sharing them.I do n't believe that 's true : perhaps I 'm wrong , but I believe that CBS would have copyright on the DVD even if the shows on it are public domain... anyone else with a copy of the original show would be allowed to make their own DVD , but not to copy one that CBS created .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, this line here is the real crux of the matter, and I think reflects a market failure.There's nothing 'market' about copyright: it would not exist without government and is entirely a government failure.Because these shows are in the public domain (I haven't verified this, but I'm taking the claim at face value), CBS can't see a way to profit from them--if they release these episodes on DVD, there will be nothing illegal about ripping and sharing them.I don't believe that's true: perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe that CBS would have copyright on the DVD even if the shows on it are public domain... anyone else with a copy of the original show would be allowed to make their own DVD, but not to copy one that CBS created.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827864</id>
	<title>Re:Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263917100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>But I don't see a price tag there. Would it sound too much like demanding a ransom?</i> <br> <br>Maybe if they were approached with a serious offer they would put a price on them at that point. Media isn't like buying a car where they don't care what you do with it once it's off the lot. If this media were to be used in a commercial venture, which looks likely considering the one asking for its release is already in the business of rehashing the other Benny shows available, there is a substantially different price tag involved.<br> <br>Maybe if you'd stop being the little drama queen about anything involving copyright you'd get to learn why things work the way they do and understand CBS's position on this matter. Oh, that's right... making money is evil if its not earned by the sweat of one's brow regardless of the circumstances.<br> <br>Get a life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I do n't see a price tag there .
Would it sound too much like demanding a ransom ?
Maybe if they were approached with a serious offer they would put a price on them at that point .
Media is n't like buying a car where they do n't care what you do with it once it 's off the lot .
If this media were to be used in a commercial venture , which looks likely considering the one asking for its release is already in the business of rehashing the other Benny shows available , there is a substantially different price tag involved .
Maybe if you 'd stop being the little drama queen about anything involving copyright you 'd get to learn why things work the way they do and understand CBS 's position on this matter .
Oh , that 's right... making money is evil if its not earned by the sweat of one 's brow regardless of the circumstances .
Get a life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I don't see a price tag there.
Would it sound too much like demanding a ransom?
Maybe if they were approached with a serious offer they would put a price on them at that point.
Media isn't like buying a car where they don't care what you do with it once it's off the lot.
If this media were to be used in a commercial venture, which looks likely considering the one asking for its release is already in the business of rehashing the other Benny shows available, there is a substantially different price tag involved.
Maybe if you'd stop being the little drama queen about anything involving copyright you'd get to learn why things work the way they do and understand CBS's position on this matter.
Oh, that's right... making money is evil if its not earned by the sweat of one's brow regardless of the circumstances.
Get a life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828976</id>
	<title>Re:Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing</title>
	<author>gaelfx</author>
	<datestamp>1263930180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This just goes to show that when all else fails, asshattery is the best method for building an army. Who needs a draft when you can just con some reporter into making your enemy look bad? Who approved this article?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just goes to show that when all else fails , asshattery is the best method for building an army .
Who needs a draft when you can just con some reporter into making your enemy look bad ?
Who approved this article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just goes to show that when all else fails, asshattery is the best method for building an army.
Who needs a draft when you can just con some reporter into making your enemy look bad?
Who approved this article?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827650</id>
	<title>how can these be public but not Mickey Mouse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>At first I was wondering how these can be in the public domain when Mickey Mouse isn't, but I guess wikipedia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries'\_copyright\_length" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">provides the answer</a> [wikipedia.org]: For works published between 1923 and 1963, copyright lasts "28 (if copyright not renewed) or 95 years from publication".  What's interesting is that, if wikipedia's correct, it looks like renewing copyrights hasn't been necessary since 1964.  Seems like backpedaling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At first I was wondering how these can be in the public domain when Mickey Mouse is n't , but I guess wikipedia provides the answer [ wikipedia.org ] : For works published between 1923 and 1963 , copyright lasts " 28 ( if copyright not renewed ) or 95 years from publication " .
What 's interesting is that , if wikipedia 's correct , it looks like renewing copyrights has n't been necessary since 1964 .
Seems like backpedaling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first I was wondering how these can be in the public domain when Mickey Mouse isn't, but I guess wikipedia provides the answer [wikipedia.org]: For works published between 1923 and 1963, copyright lasts "28 (if copyright not renewed) or 95 years from publication".
What's interesting is that, if wikipedia's correct, it looks like renewing copyrights hasn't been necessary since 1964.
Seems like backpedaling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827762</id>
	<title>The article is grossly misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263915960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The headline and article are grossly misleading. CBS is not opposed to <b>preserving</b> this material. Rather, it is unwilling to assume the legal costs of protecting itself against copyright infringement suits if it <b>distributes</b> the material. While I agree that this is an unfortunate effect of the current copyright regime, it simply is not true that CBS is refusing to preserve these shows. They have not discarded them or destroyed them; they're keeping the originals in their vault.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The headline and article are grossly misleading .
CBS is not opposed to preserving this material .
Rather , it is unwilling to assume the legal costs of protecting itself against copyright infringement suits if it distributes the material .
While I agree that this is an unfortunate effect of the current copyright regime , it simply is not true that CBS is refusing to preserve these shows .
They have not discarded them or destroyed them ; they 're keeping the originals in their vault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The headline and article are grossly misleading.
CBS is not opposed to preserving this material.
Rather, it is unwilling to assume the legal costs of protecting itself against copyright infringement suits if it distributes the material.
While I agree that this is an unfortunate effect of the current copyright regime, it simply is not true that CBS is refusing to preserve these shows.
They have not discarded them or destroyed them; they're keeping the originals in their vault.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828306</id>
	<title>Uh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263921540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I'm concerned the entire point of copyright is to get people to make stuff that will eventually become public domain.  If they're going to destroy it before it gets there, why honor copyright in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I 'm concerned the entire point of copyright is to get people to make stuff that will eventually become public domain .
If they 're going to destroy it before it gets there , why honor copyright in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I'm concerned the entire point of copyright is to get people to make stuff that will eventually become public domain.
If they're going to destroy it before it gets there, why honor copyright in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30842730</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1264013040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, horses have their standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , horses have their standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, horses have their standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30837654</id>
	<title>Re:Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>16mm kinescopes?!</i> These are just airchecks!  Jack Benny had aircheck recordings made of all his radio shows, and I'd bet he had 16mm kines made of the TV shows as well.  I'd assume that the family still has them. From all the fuss I'd have thought we were talking about 35mm camera originals, or at least 35mm kinescopes, which could be of very high quality.  Even the best 16mm kines look about as good as VHS, with every fifth frame dropped as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>16mm kinescopes ? !
These are just airchecks !
Jack Benny had aircheck recordings made of all his radio shows , and I 'd bet he had 16mm kines made of the TV shows as well .
I 'd assume that the family still has them .
From all the fuss I 'd have thought we were talking about 35mm camera originals , or at least 35mm kinescopes , which could be of very high quality .
Even the best 16mm kines look about as good as VHS , with every fifth frame dropped as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>16mm kinescopes?!
These are just airchecks!
Jack Benny had aircheck recordings made of all his radio shows, and I'd bet he had 16mm kines made of the TV shows as well.
I'd assume that the family still has them.
From all the fuss I'd have thought we were talking about 35mm camera originals, or at least 35mm kinescopes, which could be of very high quality.
Even the best 16mm kines look about as good as VHS, with every fifth frame dropped as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30839874</id>
	<title>Re:Cross-posting a key comment from boing-boing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263991200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>   "...However, business is business and CBS pays for the storage of these and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of elements and that's not cheap. To give copies to her for her archive is not so simple even if she pays for her copies. Maybe some company will come forward<br>and these shows will be seen. Time will tell..."</p><p>So it IS about money! I thought so.</p><p>Because this is basically implying that CBS doesn't want to make this available because it is not already "out there". So instead of allowing someone to copy what they could legally copy from anyone with a VCR copy (if such were available)... they'd rather keep it hidden until someone pays them more money then just the cost of transferring to digital format. aka: a broadcast via some media company.</p><p>To suggest that digital copies are more expensive to keep then climate controlled analog media... that kind of PR logic is hard to believe.</p><p>Come on CBS... just release them before no one cares and we loose it all to earthquake because your "costs" are too high to properly protect. Nothing is more preserving (and cheaper) than multiple distributed copies!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...However , business is business and CBS pays for the storage of these and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of elements and that 's not cheap .
To give copies to her for her archive is not so simple even if she pays for her copies .
Maybe some company will come forwardand these shows will be seen .
Time will tell... " So it IS about money !
I thought so.Because this is basically implying that CBS does n't want to make this available because it is not already " out there " .
So instead of allowing someone to copy what they could legally copy from anyone with a VCR copy ( if such were available ) ... they 'd rather keep it hidden until someone pays them more money then just the cost of transferring to digital format .
aka : a broadcast via some media company.To suggest that digital copies are more expensive to keep then climate controlled analog media... that kind of PR logic is hard to believe.Come on CBS... just release them before no one cares and we loose it all to earthquake because your " costs " are too high to properly protect .
Nothing is more preserving ( and cheaper ) than multiple distributed copies !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   "...However, business is business and CBS pays for the storage of these and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of elements and that's not cheap.
To give copies to her for her archive is not so simple even if she pays for her copies.
Maybe some company will come forwardand these shows will be seen.
Time will tell..."So it IS about money!
I thought so.Because this is basically implying that CBS doesn't want to make this available because it is not already "out there".
So instead of allowing someone to copy what they could legally copy from anyone with a VCR copy (if such were available)... they'd rather keep it hidden until someone pays them more money then just the cost of transferring to digital format.
aka: a broadcast via some media company.To suggest that digital copies are more expensive to keep then climate controlled analog media... that kind of PR logic is hard to believe.Come on CBS... just release them before no one cares and we loose it all to earthquake because your "costs" are too high to properly protect.
Nothing is more preserving (and cheaper) than multiple distributed copies!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827566</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That from the Honeymooners, not jack Benny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That from the Honeymooners , not jack Benny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That from the Honeymooners, not jack Benny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827598</id>
	<title>Obamacare croaked with Coakley!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the polls and weep, libtards!</p><p>Note how the stockmarket - that predictor of future standards of living - jumped up on the death of Obamacare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the polls and weep , libtards ! Note how the stockmarket - that predictor of future standards of living - jumped up on the death of Obamacare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the polls and weep, libtards!Note how the stockmarket - that predictor of future standards of living - jumped up on the death of Obamacare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827692</id>
	<title>Not in public domain.</title>
	<author>starbugs</author>
	<datestamp>1263915360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I write a book when I'm 20, then publish it when I'm 70, my Copyright will extend from the year I published it, not when I wrote it.</p><p>A show like this is the work of many people (not just one person). Therefore if CBS wants to release the footage or destroy the footage, it's up to them. While I'm unfamiliar with Jack Benny, but if there is a 'big stink' raised in regards to this not being released, then they might decide to make anyone visiting their vault sign an NDA about its contents.</p><p>But if they don't digitize the footage, time will destroy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I write a book when I 'm 20 , then publish it when I 'm 70 , my Copyright will extend from the year I published it , not when I wrote it.A show like this is the work of many people ( not just one person ) .
Therefore if CBS wants to release the footage or destroy the footage , it 's up to them .
While I 'm unfamiliar with Jack Benny , but if there is a 'big stink ' raised in regards to this not being released , then they might decide to make anyone visiting their vault sign an NDA about its contents.But if they do n't digitize the footage , time will destroy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I write a book when I'm 20, then publish it when I'm 70, my Copyright will extend from the year I published it, not when I wrote it.A show like this is the work of many people (not just one person).
Therefore if CBS wants to release the footage or destroy the footage, it's up to them.
While I'm unfamiliar with Jack Benny, but if there is a 'big stink' raised in regards to this not being released, then they might decide to make anyone visiting their vault sign an NDA about its contents.But if they don't digitize the footage, time will destroy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30841152</id>
	<title>Re:revoke ALL their copyrights</title>
	<author>SpacePunk</author>
	<datestamp>1263999000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CBS, and it's executives should be charged with theft by every person in their local jurisdiction that wants these recorded onto something more substantial.  The material is in the public domain, and belongs to all of us as it is public property.  We all own the rights, and CBS needs a good fucking for denying us our public property.  That includes the tape it's recorded on since it is part and parcel of the program as it was recorded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CBS , and it 's executives should be charged with theft by every person in their local jurisdiction that wants these recorded onto something more substantial .
The material is in the public domain , and belongs to all of us as it is public property .
We all own the rights , and CBS needs a good fucking for denying us our public property .
That includes the tape it 's recorded on since it is part and parcel of the program as it was recorded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CBS, and it's executives should be charged with theft by every person in their local jurisdiction that wants these recorded onto something more substantial.
The material is in the public domain, and belongs to all of us as it is public property.
We all own the rights, and CBS needs a good fucking for denying us our public property.
That includes the tape it's recorded on since it is part and parcel of the program as it was recorded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828722</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>everynerd</author>
	<datestamp>1263925800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What an age we live in when this is modded "informative".</htmltext>
<tokenext>What an age we live in when this is modded " informative " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an age we live in when this is modded "informative".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827636</id>
	<title>Read the article, slashdot summary is wrong</title>
	<author>Jiro</author>
	<datestamp>1263914700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CBS claims that there could be music clearance problems--which is an entirely legitimate possibility.  The episodes are probably public domain because when they were made copyrights had to be renewed and there's little chance they were renewed.  But if the music came from any outside source, it's quite possible that they *did* renew it, leaving the music in copyright today--and leaving CBS liable for serious damages in court if they just give the episodes to some fans to copy.  Blame the copyright system, but do not blame CBS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CBS claims that there could be music clearance problems--which is an entirely legitimate possibility .
The episodes are probably public domain because when they were made copyrights had to be renewed and there 's little chance they were renewed .
But if the music came from any outside source , it 's quite possible that they * did * renew it , leaving the music in copyright today--and leaving CBS liable for serious damages in court if they just give the episodes to some fans to copy .
Blame the copyright system , but do not blame CBS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CBS claims that there could be music clearance problems--which is an entirely legitimate possibility.
The episodes are probably public domain because when they were made copyrights had to be renewed and there's little chance they were renewed.
But if the music came from any outside source, it's quite possible that they *did* renew it, leaving the music in copyright today--and leaving CBS liable for serious damages in court if they just give the episodes to some fans to copy.
Blame the copyright system, but do not blame CBS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828324</id>
	<title>Is CBS just holding out?</title>
	<author>re\_organeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1263921660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To see how much they can get?</p><p>Sad to say that this sounds so money-grubbing based, but in this day and time, it really wouldn't surprise me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To see how much they can get ? Sad to say that this sounds so money-grubbing based , but in this day and time , it really would n't surprise me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To see how much they can get?Sad to say that this sounds so money-grubbing based, but in this day and time, it really wouldn't surprise me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828002</id>
	<title>Re:revoke ALL their copyrights</title>
	<author>cetialphav</author>
	<datestamp>1263918660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a social contract at work</p></div><p>Well, there actually isn't a contract.  Copyright provides monopolistic control of a work for a period of time.  That is it.  The receiver of those benefits has no duty or obligation to do anything when copyright expires.</p><p>You are right that CBS is being completely stupid in what it is doing (and I have written to them to complain), but they have no legal obligation to preserve anything.</p><p>But since there is no contract, there is no obligation by the people to preserve the length of the copyright protections.  Congress is free to recognize that sleazebags like CBS do not need extraordinary lengths of time to exploit their copyrights.  CBS enjoys their copyright protections because they have been granted by the voters through Congress.  They should realize that arbitrarily pissing people off could result in a political backlash that could hurt them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a social contract at workWell , there actually is n't a contract .
Copyright provides monopolistic control of a work for a period of time .
That is it .
The receiver of those benefits has no duty or obligation to do anything when copyright expires.You are right that CBS is being completely stupid in what it is doing ( and I have written to them to complain ) , but they have no legal obligation to preserve anything.But since there is no contract , there is no obligation by the people to preserve the length of the copyright protections .
Congress is free to recognize that sleazebags like CBS do not need extraordinary lengths of time to exploit their copyrights .
CBS enjoys their copyright protections because they have been granted by the voters through Congress .
They should realize that arbitrarily pissing people off could result in a political backlash that could hurt them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a social contract at workWell, there actually isn't a contract.
Copyright provides monopolistic control of a work for a period of time.
That is it.
The receiver of those benefits has no duty or obligation to do anything when copyright expires.You are right that CBS is being completely stupid in what it is doing (and I have written to them to complain), but they have no legal obligation to preserve anything.But since there is no contract, there is no obligation by the people to preserve the length of the copyright protections.
Congress is free to recognize that sleazebags like CBS do not need extraordinary lengths of time to exploit their copyrights.
CBS enjoys their copyright protections because they have been granted by the voters through Congress.
They should realize that arbitrarily pissing people off could result in a political backlash that could hurt them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830390</id>
	<title>Devil's Advocate</title>
	<author>Narcogen</author>
	<datestamp>1263991560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's play devil's advocate for a second.</p><p>These materials are in the public domain. This means that CBS, who owns the physical media on which these performances are recorded, would owe no royalties or other payments to any other rightsholders should it choose to air them or sell them or monetize them in any other way.</p><p>The fanclub wants them preserved (which in this case means copied) and is willing to pay for this, thereby turning what is a potentially valuable asset with no liabilities attached into a worthless commodity.</p><p>Jack Benny's estate supports the fan club's desire to copy... I mean, preserve the content... however the basis of the request to do so is that the material is in the public domain, so the estate has no more right than anyone else to determine what should happen to it, which leaves only CBS, which owns and possesses the physical media.</p><p>This is being called destruction, since presumably CBS has no actual plans to do anything with this footage: if it did, presumably it would have done before now. So if they do not choose to allow copying... I mean, preservation, and something were to happen to the originals in their possession, it would be lost.</p><p>This is admittedly a shame, and is a fault of how such things have been handled up to now. It certainly would be nice if CBS, and other holders of such materials, had a friendly policy of allowing such materials to be disseminated once they enter the public domain.</p><p>However, no one should be surprised when this doesn't happen. From now on, content creators need to be careful about what arrangements they enter into with publishers and distributors, and arrange for physical copies to be archived somewhere, undistributed, ready for preservation when rights expire and materials enter the public domain (assuming this ever happens again in our lifetimes).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's play devil 's advocate for a second.These materials are in the public domain .
This means that CBS , who owns the physical media on which these performances are recorded , would owe no royalties or other payments to any other rightsholders should it choose to air them or sell them or monetize them in any other way.The fanclub wants them preserved ( which in this case means copied ) and is willing to pay for this , thereby turning what is a potentially valuable asset with no liabilities attached into a worthless commodity.Jack Benny 's estate supports the fan club 's desire to copy... I mean , preserve the content... however the basis of the request to do so is that the material is in the public domain , so the estate has no more right than anyone else to determine what should happen to it , which leaves only CBS , which owns and possesses the physical media.This is being called destruction , since presumably CBS has no actual plans to do anything with this footage : if it did , presumably it would have done before now .
So if they do not choose to allow copying... I mean , preservation , and something were to happen to the originals in their possession , it would be lost.This is admittedly a shame , and is a fault of how such things have been handled up to now .
It certainly would be nice if CBS , and other holders of such materials , had a friendly policy of allowing such materials to be disseminated once they enter the public domain.However , no one should be surprised when this does n't happen .
From now on , content creators need to be careful about what arrangements they enter into with publishers and distributors , and arrange for physical copies to be archived somewhere , undistributed , ready for preservation when rights expire and materials enter the public domain ( assuming this ever happens again in our lifetimes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's play devil's advocate for a second.These materials are in the public domain.
This means that CBS, who owns the physical media on which these performances are recorded, would owe no royalties or other payments to any other rightsholders should it choose to air them or sell them or monetize them in any other way.The fanclub wants them preserved (which in this case means copied) and is willing to pay for this, thereby turning what is a potentially valuable asset with no liabilities attached into a worthless commodity.Jack Benny's estate supports the fan club's desire to copy... I mean, preserve the content... however the basis of the request to do so is that the material is in the public domain, so the estate has no more right than anyone else to determine what should happen to it, which leaves only CBS, which owns and possesses the physical media.This is being called destruction, since presumably CBS has no actual plans to do anything with this footage: if it did, presumably it would have done before now.
So if they do not choose to allow copying... I mean, preservation, and something were to happen to the originals in their possession, it would be lost.This is admittedly a shame, and is a fault of how such things have been handled up to now.
It certainly would be nice if CBS, and other holders of such materials, had a friendly policy of allowing such materials to be disseminated once they enter the public domain.However, no one should be surprised when this doesn't happen.
From now on, content creators need to be careful about what arrangements they enter into with publishers and distributors, and arrange for physical copies to be archived somewhere, undistributed, ready for preservation when rights expire and materials enter the public domain (assuming this ever happens again in our lifetimes).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830726</id>
	<title>There's a CBS feedback link in the posted article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263996120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could Slashdot the cbs feedback system calling CBS Horse Mother Fuckers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could Slashdot the cbs feedback system calling CBS Horse Mother Fuckers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could Slashdot the cbs feedback system calling CBS Horse Mother Fuckers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827686</id>
	<title>Re:Not that my opinion matters</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1263915300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a big fan of Jack Benny's work I have to say CBS aren't a bunch of mother fuckers. They're a bunch of horse fuckers.</p></div><p>They can't be both? Mother fuckers don't have to be fucking a <i>human</i> mother.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a big fan of Jack Benny 's work I have to say CBS are n't a bunch of mother fuckers .
They 're a bunch of horse fuckers.They ca n't be both ?
Mother fuckers do n't have to be fucking a human mother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a big fan of Jack Benny's work I have to say CBS aren't a bunch of mother fuckers.
They're a bunch of horse fuckers.They can't be both?
Mother fuckers don't have to be fucking a human mother.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30853130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30836850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30835534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30834038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30832128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30842410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30842730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30843838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30841152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30837916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30834118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30840476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30837654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30831524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30839874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30832058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30838886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0037202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30832128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30841152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30853130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30832058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30834038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30842410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30837654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30839874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30837916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30831524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829136
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30835534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30830874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30840476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30842730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30843838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828722
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30838886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30836850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30831090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0037202.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30827980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30834118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30828478
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0037202.30829990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
