<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_24_1348251</id>
	<title>Mozilla's VP of Engineering On H.264</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264346040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>We recently discussed news that <a href="https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/21/1441210/YouTube-Offers-Experimental-Opt-In-HTML5-Video">YouTube</a> and <a href="https://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01/22/021257/Vimeo-Also-Introduces-HTML5-Video-Player">Vimeo</a> are each testing their own HTML5 video players using the H.264 format. Firefox does not support H.264, and Mozilla's vice president of engineering, Mike Shaver, has now made a post explaining why. Quoting: "For Mozilla, H.264 is not currently a suitable technology choice. In many countries, it is a patented technology, meaning that it is illegal to use without paying license fees to the MPEG-LA. Without such a license, it is <a href="http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/">not legal to use or distribute software that produces or consumes H.264-encoded content</a>. Indeed, even distributing H.264 content over the internet or broadcasting it over the airwaves requires the consent of the MPEG-LA, and the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010. These license fees affect not only browser developers and distributors, but also represent a toll booth on anyone who wishes to produce video content." Mozilla developer Robert O'Callahan has written <a href="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video\_freedom\_a.html">a blog post on the same subject</a>, following a talk he gave on Friday about the importance of open video on the web.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We recently discussed news that YouTube and Vimeo are each testing their own HTML5 video players using the H.264 format .
Firefox does not support H.264 , and Mozilla 's vice president of engineering , Mike Shaver , has now made a post explaining why .
Quoting : " For Mozilla , H.264 is not currently a suitable technology choice .
In many countries , it is a patented technology , meaning that it is illegal to use without paying license fees to the MPEG-LA .
Without such a license , it is not legal to use or distribute software that produces or consumes H.264-encoded content .
Indeed , even distributing H.264 content over the internet or broadcasting it over the airwaves requires the consent of the MPEG-LA , and the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010 .
These license fees affect not only browser developers and distributors , but also represent a toll booth on anyone who wishes to produce video content .
" Mozilla developer Robert O'Callahan has written a blog post on the same subject , following a talk he gave on Friday about the importance of open video on the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We recently discussed news that YouTube and Vimeo are each testing their own HTML5 video players using the H.264 format.
Firefox does not support H.264, and Mozilla's vice president of engineering, Mike Shaver, has now made a post explaining why.
Quoting: "For Mozilla, H.264 is not currently a suitable technology choice.
In many countries, it is a patented technology, meaning that it is illegal to use without paying license fees to the MPEG-LA.
Without such a license, it is not legal to use or distribute software that produces or consumes H.264-encoded content.
Indeed, even distributing H.264 content over the internet or broadcasting it over the airwaves requires the consent of the MPEG-LA, and the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010.
These license fees affect not only browser developers and distributors, but also represent a toll booth on anyone who wishes to produce video content.
" Mozilla developer Robert O'Callahan has written a blog post on the same subject, following a talk he gave on Friday about the importance of open video on the web.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30888654</id>
	<title>Re:software patents are immoral</title>
	<author>crimperman</author>
	<datestamp>1264427760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, whatever argument you are trying to make will be a lot easier to read if you fix the shift keys on your keyboard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , whatever argument you are trying to make will be a lot easier to read if you fix the shift keys on your keyboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, whatever argument you are trying to make will be a lot easier to read if you fix the shift keys on your keyboard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878704</id>
	<title>Crippling PPC Incompatibilities, too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264352040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Starting perhaps a month ago, certain video players completely hang Safari on PPC machines.  It's incredibly annoying, because often websites and even some advertising content feature embedded video which automatically plays (read: hangs) upon opening the page.  This 'feature' has rendered many sites a crapshoot as to whether or not they'll bring a browsing session to a halt, and made some altogether unvisitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Starting perhaps a month ago , certain video players completely hang Safari on PPC machines .
It 's incredibly annoying , because often websites and even some advertising content feature embedded video which automatically plays ( read : hangs ) upon opening the page .
This 'feature ' has rendered many sites a crapshoot as to whether or not they 'll bring a browsing session to a halt , and made some altogether unvisitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starting perhaps a month ago, certain video players completely hang Safari on PPC machines.
It's incredibly annoying, because often websites and even some advertising content feature embedded video which automatically plays (read: hangs) upon opening the page.
This 'feature' has rendered many sites a crapshoot as to whether or not they'll bring a browsing session to a halt, and made some altogether unvisitable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881024</id>
	<title>This is a losing strategy</title>
	<author>reub2000</author>
	<datestamp>1264364580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the MPEG-LA looked at history, they would know that pretty much every format universal on the Internet today, got that way because the player/viewer was offered free of charge. The MPEG-LA is basically shooting them selves in the foot by requiring a royalty to decode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the MPEG-LA looked at history , they would know that pretty much every format universal on the Internet today , got that way because the player/viewer was offered free of charge .
The MPEG-LA is basically shooting them selves in the foot by requiring a royalty to decode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the MPEG-LA looked at history, they would know that pretty much every format universal on the Internet today, got that way because the player/viewer was offered free of charge.
The MPEG-LA is basically shooting them selves in the foot by requiring a royalty to decode.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879278</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 Video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264355400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and H.264 will be consigned to the same back shelves as some of the ogg codecs.</i></p><p>H.264 is the de-facto standard for online video now. Just about every device has decoding for it in hardware these days, phones, PMPs, TVs et al. Being supported by large companies and market leaders means it's here for a very long time.</p><p>OGG has never been popular and is now getting dropped from various projects due to lack of use. It's a near dead format, despite it's benefits over MP3, it simply never achieve support in almost all devices, or obtain any interest by consumer device manufacturers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and H.264 will be consigned to the same back shelves as some of the ogg codecs.H.264 is the de-facto standard for online video now .
Just about every device has decoding for it in hardware these days , phones , PMPs , TVs et al .
Being supported by large companies and market leaders means it 's here for a very long time.OGG has never been popular and is now getting dropped from various projects due to lack of use .
It 's a near dead format , despite it 's benefits over MP3 , it simply never achieve support in almost all devices , or obtain any interest by consumer device manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and H.264 will be consigned to the same back shelves as some of the ogg codecs.H.264 is the de-facto standard for online video now.
Just about every device has decoding for it in hardware these days, phones, PMPs, TVs et al.
Being supported by large companies and market leaders means it's here for a very long time.OGG has never been popular and is now getting dropped from various projects due to lack of use.
It's a near dead format, despite it's benefits over MP3, it simply never achieve support in almost all devices, or obtain any interest by consumer device manufacturers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879866</id>
	<title>Codecs</title>
	<author>edxwelch</author>
	<datestamp>1264359120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it appropiate to put the video decode code in the browser in the first place? Media player's use the codecs that are installed on the OS. Presumably if they went this route they get the hardware acceleration that's built into the video card</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it appropiate to put the video decode code in the browser in the first place ?
Media player 's use the codecs that are installed on the OS .
Presumably if they went this route they get the hardware acceleration that 's built into the video card</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it appropiate to put the video decode code in the browser in the first place?
Media player's use the codecs that are installed on the OS.
Presumably if they went this route they get the hardware acceleration that's built into the video card</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881904</id>
	<title>Re:Just open up the video architecture</title>
	<author>nabsltd</author>
	<datestamp>1264326240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mozilla doesn't have to implement anything, just make the video plugin architecture extensible.</p></div><p>They could even include an H.264 player plugin as part of default install, but only make it a hook to already installed codecs.</p><p>Then, add some code so that if you try to play HTML5 H.264 video without the right codec, it displays a page that tells the user how to download one for the current OS.  If your OS has support out of the box, then you'd never know that Firefox couldn't play H.264 without some third-party code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla does n't have to implement anything , just make the video plugin architecture extensible.They could even include an H.264 player plugin as part of default install , but only make it a hook to already installed codecs.Then , add some code so that if you try to play HTML5 H.264 video without the right codec , it displays a page that tells the user how to download one for the current OS .
If your OS has support out of the box , then you 'd never know that Firefox could n't play H.264 without some third-party code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla doesn't have to implement anything, just make the video plugin architecture extensible.They could even include an H.264 player plugin as part of default install, but only make it a hook to already installed codecs.Then, add some code so that if you try to play HTML5 H.264 video without the right codec, it displays a page that tells the user how to download one for the current OS.
If your OS has support out of the box, then you'd never know that Firefox couldn't play H.264 without some third-party code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878466</id>
	<title>Oh please.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264350660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just throw a DirectShow interface at the video player and quit shipping codecs.</p><p>Let the user decide what codecs they want to install and allow the sites to choose what encoding mechanisms they wish to use.</p><p>Not everyone requires free software. Some are prepared to pay a reasonable price for a product they select.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just throw a DirectShow interface at the video player and quit shipping codecs.Let the user decide what codecs they want to install and allow the sites to choose what encoding mechanisms they wish to use.Not everyone requires free software .
Some are prepared to pay a reasonable price for a product they select .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just throw a DirectShow interface at the video player and quit shipping codecs.Let the user decide what codecs they want to install and allow the sites to choose what encoding mechanisms they wish to use.Not everyone requires free software.
Some are prepared to pay a reasonable price for a product they select.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878936</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264353420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardware acceleration - fair enough. That's only because nobody's built it yet. On desktop machines, it should be possible to use OpenCL, Cuda, DirectCompute or similar to use the GPU as a hardware decoder - that's fundamentally what hardware accelerated h.264 or WMV / VC-1 decoding does anyway. Assuming you need it at all, of course. It's just mobile devices where this is an issue.</p><p>Patents... No. There are known patents covering Theora, all of which were owned by On2. On2 developed VP3 avoiding known video encoding patents, so they could actually sell licenses to the thing (and later VPx codecs). On2 issued a non-assertion statement relating to all patents covering VP3. That technology can be used by anyone, for anything, forever. All known patents are free for anyone to use, for any purpose. That only leaves potential unknown patents. Frankly, the risk of an unknown patent is exactly the same for Theora as it is for h.264, or anything else.</p><p>As for video quality... it's true that the encoders aren't as mature as the available h.264 encoders. The original reference Theora encoder actually was the original VP3 encoder, with minimal modifications. The Theora bitstream format changed substantially from VP3, adding new features and more leeway to improve the encoders, but actually improving the encoder didn't happen until Theora 1.1 (Thusnelda). For the kind of content you're likely to find on websites, Theora is actually pretty reasonable.</p><p>Remember that the early h.264 encoders were only marginally better than the best available MPEG-4 ASP encoders, such as Xvid. It took years for them to reach their current quality level. The Theora encoder is only a couple of years old, and is still only at version 1.1.</p><p>Having someone else come up with yet another codec simply will not help. It doesn't matter if it's vastly superior to h.264 - it still won't have any hardware support, the first versions of the encoders will still not be very good, and it'll still have unknown patent risk, thanks to a completely brain-damaged patent system in the US and elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardware acceleration - fair enough .
That 's only because nobody 's built it yet .
On desktop machines , it should be possible to use OpenCL , Cuda , DirectCompute or similar to use the GPU as a hardware decoder - that 's fundamentally what hardware accelerated h.264 or WMV / VC-1 decoding does anyway .
Assuming you need it at all , of course .
It 's just mobile devices where this is an issue.Patents... No. There are known patents covering Theora , all of which were owned by On2 .
On2 developed VP3 avoiding known video encoding patents , so they could actually sell licenses to the thing ( and later VPx codecs ) .
On2 issued a non-assertion statement relating to all patents covering VP3 .
That technology can be used by anyone , for anything , forever .
All known patents are free for anyone to use , for any purpose .
That only leaves potential unknown patents .
Frankly , the risk of an unknown patent is exactly the same for Theora as it is for h.264 , or anything else.As for video quality... it 's true that the encoders are n't as mature as the available h.264 encoders .
The original reference Theora encoder actually was the original VP3 encoder , with minimal modifications .
The Theora bitstream format changed substantially from VP3 , adding new features and more leeway to improve the encoders , but actually improving the encoder did n't happen until Theora 1.1 ( Thusnelda ) .
For the kind of content you 're likely to find on websites , Theora is actually pretty reasonable.Remember that the early h.264 encoders were only marginally better than the best available MPEG-4 ASP encoders , such as Xvid .
It took years for them to reach their current quality level .
The Theora encoder is only a couple of years old , and is still only at version 1.1.Having someone else come up with yet another codec simply will not help .
It does n't matter if it 's vastly superior to h.264 - it still wo n't have any hardware support , the first versions of the encoders will still not be very good , and it 'll still have unknown patent risk , thanks to a completely brain-damaged patent system in the US and elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardware acceleration - fair enough.
That's only because nobody's built it yet.
On desktop machines, it should be possible to use OpenCL, Cuda, DirectCompute or similar to use the GPU as a hardware decoder - that's fundamentally what hardware accelerated h.264 or WMV / VC-1 decoding does anyway.
Assuming you need it at all, of course.
It's just mobile devices where this is an issue.Patents... No. There are known patents covering Theora, all of which were owned by On2.
On2 developed VP3 avoiding known video encoding patents, so they could actually sell licenses to the thing (and later VPx codecs).
On2 issued a non-assertion statement relating to all patents covering VP3.
That technology can be used by anyone, for anything, forever.
All known patents are free for anyone to use, for any purpose.
That only leaves potential unknown patents.
Frankly, the risk of an unknown patent is exactly the same for Theora as it is for h.264, or anything else.As for video quality... it's true that the encoders aren't as mature as the available h.264 encoders.
The original reference Theora encoder actually was the original VP3 encoder, with minimal modifications.
The Theora bitstream format changed substantially from VP3, adding new features and more leeway to improve the encoders, but actually improving the encoder didn't happen until Theora 1.1 (Thusnelda).
For the kind of content you're likely to find on websites, Theora is actually pretty reasonable.Remember that the early h.264 encoders were only marginally better than the best available MPEG-4 ASP encoders, such as Xvid.
It took years for them to reach their current quality level.
The Theora encoder is only a couple of years old, and is still only at version 1.1.Having someone else come up with yet another codec simply will not help.
It doesn't matter if it's vastly superior to h.264 - it still won't have any hardware support, the first versions of the encoders will still not be very good, and it'll still have unknown patent risk, thanks to a completely brain-damaged patent system in the US and elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879196</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality that's why FSF will win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264354920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Here's a relevant quote from <a href="http://elise.com/quotes/quotes/shawquotes.htm" title="elise.com">Geore Bernard Shaw</a> [elise.com].
Quote:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man."</p></div><p>
So you're asking the Free Software People to give up their principles in favor of expediency and thus promote no progress. I think not. I prefer to live in a world of Freedom than one ruled by expediency. Expediency might win a battle but in the end principles win the war. Considering the progress of GPL software for the past 26 years I would say they are doing a damn fine job of promoting positive progress. Better for the reasonable man to use free and open standards codecs than the Free Software People piss away their principles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a relevant quote from Geore Bernard Shaw [ elise.com ] .
Quote : " The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man .
" So you 're asking the Free Software People to give up their principles in favor of expediency and thus promote no progress .
I think not .
I prefer to live in a world of Freedom than one ruled by expediency .
Expediency might win a battle but in the end principles win the war .
Considering the progress of GPL software for the past 26 years I would say they are doing a damn fine job of promoting positive progress .
Better for the reasonable man to use free and open standards codecs than the Free Software People piss away their principles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Here's a relevant quote from Geore Bernard Shaw [elise.com].
Quote:"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man.
"
So you're asking the Free Software People to give up their principles in favor of expediency and thus promote no progress.
I think not.
I prefer to live in a world of Freedom than one ruled by expediency.
Expediency might win a battle but in the end principles win the war.
Considering the progress of GPL software for the past 26 years I would say they are doing a damn fine job of promoting positive progress.
Better for the reasonable man to use free and open standards codecs than the Free Software People piss away their principles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884970</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264346160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>arguably they are "method patents"   realistically they are standards patents which is even stupider imo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>arguably they are " method patents " realistically they are standards patents which is even stupider imo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>arguably they are "method patents"   realistically they are standards patents which is even stupider imo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880022</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, as long as the two biggest browsers - Firefox and IE - don't support H.264 based HTML5 video, everybody will stay with Flash video anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , as long as the two biggest browsers - Firefox and IE - do n't support H.264 based HTML5 video , everybody will stay with Flash video anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, as long as the two biggest browsers - Firefox and IE - don't support H.264 based HTML5 video, everybody will stay with Flash video anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881158</id>
	<title>Selfish format selection is immoral</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264365300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"we should actively rip off h.264, not because we want to use the codec for free, but simply to undermine the status quo that some people, for whatever reason, respect this bullshit called software patents"</p><p>Let me guess, you're a ffmpeg developer, no?  Well you sure sound like them:  "Look at me! I'm sticking it to THE MAN by using his LICENSED FORMATS! TAKE THAT!"</p><p>Listen up, idiot.  The reason people use formats is for compatibility. Every other factor is secondary.  Even if you're not a judgement-proof teen in the Ukraine you're going to be forced by market pressure to use the same formats he uses, because no one wants to be incompatible.</p><p>THE MAN doesn't have to collect cash from each person in order to make a boatload of money, he'll happily go after the most likely to pay: MPEG LA has collected over $66 per every man, woman, and child on earth in codec licensing so far. They won't go after you, they go after your technology suppliers and the cost gets passed along. If thats ever not enough they'll simply have your government tax it out of you like the music industry has done with blank media in many places.</p><p>You think you're screwing the man? You're a fucking idiot.   By writing and using these excellent open source tools for encumbered formats you're assuring the man's success.   Why do you think that MPEG LA does not enforce against flagrant violators like ffmpeg, VLC, etc?   They are required to use the same terms for everyone, but they risk a hard smackdown by the FTC for antitrust abuse specifically because allowing those tools to go unmolested is good for business.</p><p>The only way to screw the man here is to not adopt his formats. End of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" we should actively rip off h.264 , not because we want to use the codec for free , but simply to undermine the status quo that some people , for whatever reason , respect this bullshit called software patents " Let me guess , you 're a ffmpeg developer , no ?
Well you sure sound like them : " Look at me !
I 'm sticking it to THE MAN by using his LICENSED FORMATS !
TAKE THAT !
" Listen up , idiot .
The reason people use formats is for compatibility .
Every other factor is secondary .
Even if you 're not a judgement-proof teen in the Ukraine you 're going to be forced by market pressure to use the same formats he uses , because no one wants to be incompatible.THE MAN does n't have to collect cash from each person in order to make a boatload of money , he 'll happily go after the most likely to pay : MPEG LA has collected over $ 66 per every man , woman , and child on earth in codec licensing so far .
They wo n't go after you , they go after your technology suppliers and the cost gets passed along .
If thats ever not enough they 'll simply have your government tax it out of you like the music industry has done with blank media in many places.You think you 're screwing the man ?
You 're a fucking idiot .
By writing and using these excellent open source tools for encumbered formats you 're assuring the man 's success .
Why do you think that MPEG LA does not enforce against flagrant violators like ffmpeg , VLC , etc ?
They are required to use the same terms for everyone , but they risk a hard smackdown by the FTC for antitrust abuse specifically because allowing those tools to go unmolested is good for business.The only way to screw the man here is to not adopt his formats .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"we should actively rip off h.264, not because we want to use the codec for free, but simply to undermine the status quo that some people, for whatever reason, respect this bullshit called software patents"Let me guess, you're a ffmpeg developer, no?
Well you sure sound like them:  "Look at me!
I'm sticking it to THE MAN by using his LICENSED FORMATS!
TAKE THAT!
"Listen up, idiot.
The reason people use formats is for compatibility.
Every other factor is secondary.
Even if you're not a judgement-proof teen in the Ukraine you're going to be forced by market pressure to use the same formats he uses, because no one wants to be incompatible.THE MAN doesn't have to collect cash from each person in order to make a boatload of money, he'll happily go after the most likely to pay: MPEG LA has collected over $66 per every man, woman, and child on earth in codec licensing so far.
They won't go after you, they go after your technology suppliers and the cost gets passed along.
If thats ever not enough they'll simply have your government tax it out of you like the music industry has done with blank media in many places.You think you're screwing the man?
You're a fucking idiot.
By writing and using these excellent open source tools for encumbered formats you're assuring the man's success.
Why do you think that MPEG LA does not enforce against flagrant violators like ffmpeg, VLC, etc?
They are required to use the same terms for everyone, but they risk a hard smackdown by the FTC for antitrust abuse specifically because allowing those tools to go unmolested is good for business.The only way to screw the man here is to not adopt his formats.
End of story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882684</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264330740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>h.264 is only one of the many codecs the Flash runtime can play.  See also h.263 and on2 vp6</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>h.264 is only one of the many codecs the Flash runtime can play .
See also h.263 and on2 vp6</tokentext>
<sentencetext>h.264 is only one of the many codecs the Flash runtime can play.
See also h.263 and on2 vp6</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879632</id>
	<title>Fork?</title>
	<author>zokier</author>
	<datestamp>1264357860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What we need is clean fork of Firefox which would have some kind of h264 support. It should follow otherwise upstream as closely as possible and be 100\% compatible with extensions and themes. Of course MozCos trademarks should be avoided. So, a catchy domain, few devs and some marketing, and MozCos stubbornness wouldn't matter anymore. I'd guess even Google could help to sponsor this kind of project, as it's in their interest to get the format war over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need is clean fork of Firefox which would have some kind of h264 support .
It should follow otherwise upstream as closely as possible and be 100 \ % compatible with extensions and themes .
Of course MozCos trademarks should be avoided .
So , a catchy domain , few devs and some marketing , and MozCos stubbornness would n't matter anymore .
I 'd guess even Google could help to sponsor this kind of project , as it 's in their interest to get the format war over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need is clean fork of Firefox which would have some kind of h264 support.
It should follow otherwise upstream as closely as possible and be 100\% compatible with extensions and themes.
Of course MozCos trademarks should be avoided.
So, a catchy domain, few devs and some marketing, and MozCos stubbornness wouldn't matter anymore.
I'd guess even Google could help to sponsor this kind of project, as it's in their interest to get the format war over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885012</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 allows multiple codecs to be specified</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264346460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can, but why would they bother to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can , but why would they bother to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can, but why would they bother to?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881210</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>repetty</author>
	<datestamp>1264365600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If Mozilla is determined to follow US law only and therefore not implement H.264 because it's encumbered with license fees there due to dumb local laws, then it is going to go the same way as the whole US software industry - it will disappear into a black hole of law suits and legal action and very quickly become irrelevant.</i>
<br> <br>
The U.S. software industry is irrelevant? I know things are going badly but this is just hype for now.
<br> <br>
Catch your breath, dude.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Mozilla is determined to follow US law only and therefore not implement H.264 because it 's encumbered with license fees there due to dumb local laws , then it is going to go the same way as the whole US software industry - it will disappear into a black hole of law suits and legal action and very quickly become irrelevant .
The U.S. software industry is irrelevant ?
I know things are going badly but this is just hype for now .
Catch your breath , dude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Mozilla is determined to follow US law only and therefore not implement H.264 because it's encumbered with license fees there due to dumb local laws, then it is going to go the same way as the whole US software industry - it will disappear into a black hole of law suits and legal action and very quickly become irrelevant.
The U.S. software industry is irrelevant?
I know things are going badly but this is just hype for now.
Catch your breath, dude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884404</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264342260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nonsense. Firefox can use any codec that is already installed on the user's system.</p></div></blockquote><p>No it can't.  It could, with considerable effort, be <i>given</i> that ability.</p><blockquote><div><p>It's only because they have decided that they should try to force Theora on people that they are rejecting that solution.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, there are perfectly sound technical reasons to prefer Theora.  With a free/open-source codec, they can implement support simply by embedding Theora into the browser.  One bit of work, done, and now it works the same on every platform Firefox works on.</p><p>The problem with people who shout "just use system codecs" is that what they mean is "just use codecs on <i>my</i> system".  If you're a Windows user, you wouldn't cheer Mozilla for adding support for OS X system codecs.  If you're a Mac user, you wouldn't be overjoyed by news of Gnome support.  There's no cross-platform standard, so Mozilla would have to add completely separate support for every single platform they run on, one by one, starting from scratch every time.</p><p>Or they could, you know, try to persuade people to use the codec that can be embedded right into <i>any</i> browser (not just Firefox, it would be easier for everyone).  Makes a lot of sense when you think about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense .
Firefox can use any codec that is already installed on the user 's system.No it ca n't .
It could , with considerable effort , be given that ability.It 's only because they have decided that they should try to force Theora on people that they are rejecting that solution.No , there are perfectly sound technical reasons to prefer Theora .
With a free/open-source codec , they can implement support simply by embedding Theora into the browser .
One bit of work , done , and now it works the same on every platform Firefox works on.The problem with people who shout " just use system codecs " is that what they mean is " just use codecs on my system " .
If you 're a Windows user , you would n't cheer Mozilla for adding support for OS X system codecs .
If you 're a Mac user , you would n't be overjoyed by news of Gnome support .
There 's no cross-platform standard , so Mozilla would have to add completely separate support for every single platform they run on , one by one , starting from scratch every time.Or they could , you know , try to persuade people to use the codec that can be embedded right into any browser ( not just Firefox , it would be easier for everyone ) .
Makes a lot of sense when you think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense.
Firefox can use any codec that is already installed on the user's system.No it can't.
It could, with considerable effort, be given that ability.It's only because they have decided that they should try to force Theora on people that they are rejecting that solution.No, there are perfectly sound technical reasons to prefer Theora.
With a free/open-source codec, they can implement support simply by embedding Theora into the browser.
One bit of work, done, and now it works the same on every platform Firefox works on.The problem with people who shout "just use system codecs" is that what they mean is "just use codecs on my system".
If you're a Windows user, you wouldn't cheer Mozilla for adding support for OS X system codecs.
If you're a Mac user, you wouldn't be overjoyed by news of Gnome support.
There's no cross-platform standard, so Mozilla would have to add completely separate support for every single platform they run on, one by one, starting from scratch every time.Or they could, you know, try to persuade people to use the codec that can be embedded right into any browser (not just Firefox, it would be easier for everyone).
Makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881248</id>
	<title>Greed will fix it</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1264365840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was greed and corruption that brought about this situation and it is greed and corruption that will fix it. In particular:</p><p>Google wants Microsoft's desktop monopoly to break, and at the same time they compete directly with Apple's iTunes. As a consequence their only realistic shot at this is to help Linux flourish.</p><p>Microsoft sees Google as a threat to their monopoly and hence they can't let Google kill Firefox as Firefox users would likely prefer chrome to IE, thereby strengthening google further.</p><p>RIAA, MPAA etc... don't want google to grow to strong since they don't want google dictating terms to them, something they could do if they become the de-facto only site to serve video.</p><p>MPEG-LA will try to squeeze every penny from the patent licenses while the party lasts, something google and vimeo very much dislikes.</p><p>Essentially the usual short-sighted greed over quarterly profits amongst companies will cause them to push the situation until it breaks. It may take a few years but eventually the very greed that made a patent encumbered format the de-facto standard is the same greed that will kill it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was greed and corruption that brought about this situation and it is greed and corruption that will fix it .
In particular : Google wants Microsoft 's desktop monopoly to break , and at the same time they compete directly with Apple 's iTunes .
As a consequence their only realistic shot at this is to help Linux flourish.Microsoft sees Google as a threat to their monopoly and hence they ca n't let Google kill Firefox as Firefox users would likely prefer chrome to IE , thereby strengthening google further.RIAA , MPAA etc... do n't want google to grow to strong since they do n't want google dictating terms to them , something they could do if they become the de-facto only site to serve video.MPEG-LA will try to squeeze every penny from the patent licenses while the party lasts , something google and vimeo very much dislikes.Essentially the usual short-sighted greed over quarterly profits amongst companies will cause them to push the situation until it breaks .
It may take a few years but eventually the very greed that made a patent encumbered format the de-facto standard is the same greed that will kill it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was greed and corruption that brought about this situation and it is greed and corruption that will fix it.
In particular:Google wants Microsoft's desktop monopoly to break, and at the same time they compete directly with Apple's iTunes.
As a consequence their only realistic shot at this is to help Linux flourish.Microsoft sees Google as a threat to their monopoly and hence they can't let Google kill Firefox as Firefox users would likely prefer chrome to IE, thereby strengthening google further.RIAA, MPAA etc... don't want google to grow to strong since they don't want google dictating terms to them, something they could do if they become the de-facto only site to serve video.MPEG-LA will try to squeeze every penny from the patent licenses while the party lasts, something google and vimeo very much dislikes.Essentially the usual short-sighted greed over quarterly profits amongst companies will cause them to push the situation until it breaks.
It may take a few years but eventually the very greed that made a patent encumbered format the de-facto standard is the same greed that will kill it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884832</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264345140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a whole world out there that happens to enjoy watching videos online and no one in their right mind wishes to start paying money to keep doing that, neither the video providers nor the audience.</p></div><p>The biggest video provider today, by far, is that website called "YouTube". It happens to be run by Google which supports H.264. Then we also have Apple as another big player... surprise, they're in for H.264, too.</p><p>And audience? They don't want to pay for the players, but they won't have to. They'll just use free browsers that come with H.264 support out of the box - Safari on Windows, and Chrome on Linux. In a few years, possibly, also some future version of IE on Win7.</p><p>And Linux? So long as we're speaking about wide audience, it's not even on the radar, sorry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a whole world out there that happens to enjoy watching videos online and no one in their right mind wishes to start paying money to keep doing that , neither the video providers nor the audience.The biggest video provider today , by far , is that website called " YouTube " .
It happens to be run by Google which supports H.264 .
Then we also have Apple as another big player... surprise , they 're in for H.264 , too.And audience ?
They do n't want to pay for the players , but they wo n't have to .
They 'll just use free browsers that come with H.264 support out of the box - Safari on Windows , and Chrome on Linux .
In a few years , possibly , also some future version of IE on Win7.And Linux ?
So long as we 're speaking about wide audience , it 's not even on the radar , sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a whole world out there that happens to enjoy watching videos online and no one in their right mind wishes to start paying money to keep doing that, neither the video providers nor the audience.The biggest video provider today, by far, is that website called "YouTube".
It happens to be run by Google which supports H.264.
Then we also have Apple as another big player... surprise, they're in for H.264, too.And audience?
They don't want to pay for the players, but they won't have to.
They'll just use free browsers that come with H.264 support out of the box - Safari on Windows, and Chrome on Linux.
In a few years, possibly, also some future version of IE on Win7.And Linux?
So long as we're speaking about wide audience, it's not even on the radar, sorry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879904</id>
	<title>So a proprietary format became part of an HTML</title>
	<author>Perp Atuitie</author>
	<datestamp>1264359360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>standard? Can somebody explain how the hell that could happen? What does H.264 have to do with HTML5, exactly?</htmltext>
<tokenext>standard ?
Can somebody explain how the hell that could happen ?
What does H.264 have to do with HTML5 , exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>standard?
Can somebody explain how the hell that could happen?
What does H.264 have to do with HTML5, exactly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885100</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla H.264 Fees = $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1264346940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[citation needed]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878650</id>
	<title>Selecting compatibility for ideological goals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264351800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What he basically states is that "we are ideologically opposed to H264, therefore we won't support it".</p><p>Which is a devastating indictment of the entire Open Source community and something Microsoft should pick up in arguments with the EU about why Firefox should be prevented from taking a dominant position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What he basically states is that " we are ideologically opposed to H264 , therefore we wo n't support it " .Which is a devastating indictment of the entire Open Source community and something Microsoft should pick up in arguments with the EU about why Firefox should be prevented from taking a dominant position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What he basically states is that "we are ideologically opposed to H264, therefore we won't support it".Which is a devastating indictment of the entire Open Source community and something Microsoft should pick up in arguments with the EU about why Firefox should be prevented from taking a dominant position.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882922</id>
	<title>Like flash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264332240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like flash lets people use any installed codec?  Oh wait. No flash forces you to use its internal H.264, H.263, or VP6.   Or like IE lets you use any system codec? Oh wait, no it doesn't.  You must mean like silverlight?  No, even silverlight forces to use the built in codecs.  Of course there is Chrome...  BUT EVEN CHROME ONLY USES ITS OWN INTERNAL CODECS.  Safari on mac actually does use system codecs, though apple severely constrains the functionality (for example, MOV with embedded hyperlinks don't play).</p><p>Ever think there might be a reason for this?    System codecs are notoriously insecure. This is acceptable when they aren't going to be exposed to a highly hostile environment, but being embedded in a widely used browser or plugin is a very hostile environment, so no one does it. Except for apple, and thats mostly because they can get away with being security stupid because no one bothers attacking their platform.</p><p>Moreover, it's been possible to embed videos using the object tag since the mid 90s on any system dumb enough to expose the system codecs, and yet no one does video this way: The reason is because you can't expect it to work. You can't trust that the user will have any particular codec, or even one codec out of a small finite set (e.g. Theora or H.264).  Virtually all video hosting sites create a couple renditions for different player CPU levels, screen sizes, and bandwidths so supporting two formats is bad but not a killer, but having to support two dozen formats just to get something to play is a total non-starter.</p><p>TLDR:  System codecs = insecure; unpredictable; inconsistently available;  shifts the openness problem onto someone else   They are a problem, not a solution.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like flash lets people use any installed codec ?
Oh wait .
No flash forces you to use its internal H.264 , H.263 , or VP6 .
Or like IE lets you use any system codec ?
Oh wait , no it does n't .
You must mean like silverlight ?
No , even silverlight forces to use the built in codecs .
Of course there is Chrome... BUT EVEN CHROME ONLY USES ITS OWN INTERNAL CODECS .
Safari on mac actually does use system codecs , though apple severely constrains the functionality ( for example , MOV with embedded hyperlinks do n't play ) .Ever think there might be a reason for this ?
System codecs are notoriously insecure .
This is acceptable when they are n't going to be exposed to a highly hostile environment , but being embedded in a widely used browser or plugin is a very hostile environment , so no one does it .
Except for apple , and thats mostly because they can get away with being security stupid because no one bothers attacking their platform.Moreover , it 's been possible to embed videos using the object tag since the mid 90s on any system dumb enough to expose the system codecs , and yet no one does video this way : The reason is because you ca n't expect it to work .
You ca n't trust that the user will have any particular codec , or even one codec out of a small finite set ( e.g .
Theora or H.264 ) .
Virtually all video hosting sites create a couple renditions for different player CPU levels , screen sizes , and bandwidths so supporting two formats is bad but not a killer , but having to support two dozen formats just to get something to play is a total non-starter.TLDR : System codecs = insecure ; unpredictable ; inconsistently available ; shifts the openness problem onto someone else They are a problem , not a solution .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like flash lets people use any installed codec?
Oh wait.
No flash forces you to use its internal H.264, H.263, or VP6.
Or like IE lets you use any system codec?
Oh wait, no it doesn't.
You must mean like silverlight?
No, even silverlight forces to use the built in codecs.
Of course there is Chrome...  BUT EVEN CHROME ONLY USES ITS OWN INTERNAL CODECS.
Safari on mac actually does use system codecs, though apple severely constrains the functionality (for example, MOV with embedded hyperlinks don't play).Ever think there might be a reason for this?
System codecs are notoriously insecure.
This is acceptable when they aren't going to be exposed to a highly hostile environment, but being embedded in a widely used browser or plugin is a very hostile environment, so no one does it.
Except for apple, and thats mostly because they can get away with being security stupid because no one bothers attacking their platform.Moreover, it's been possible to embed videos using the object tag since the mid 90s on any system dumb enough to expose the system codecs, and yet no one does video this way: The reason is because you can't expect it to work.
You can't trust that the user will have any particular codec, or even one codec out of a small finite set (e.g.
Theora or H.264).
Virtually all video hosting sites create a couple renditions for different player CPU levels, screen sizes, and bandwidths so supporting two formats is bad but not a killer, but having to support two dozen formats just to get something to play is a total non-starter.TLDR:  System codecs = insecure; unpredictable; inconsistently available;  shifts the openness problem onto someone else   They are a problem, not a solution.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879168</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1264354860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can't pay the license. MPEG-LA will not provide a license that is GPL compatible at any price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't pay the license .
MPEG-LA will not provide a license that is GPL compatible at any price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't pay the license.
MPEG-LA will not provide a license that is GPL compatible at any price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882316</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mark most certainly won't fork Firefox. Guaranteed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark most certainly wo n't fork Firefox .
Guaranteed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark most certainly won't fork Firefox.
Guaranteed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879848</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1264359000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>USB, PCI, AGP etc are hardware standards, you may have to license them to create hardware which supports them but you certainly don't need to pay anything if you just want to create software that drives such devices.</p><p>Hardware cannot be made for free anyway, therefore the licensing cost merely goes in with all the other manufacturing and raw materials costs...<br>Software on the other hand can be made for free unless you start introducing artificial restrictions like having to license a media format.</p><p>Something like this is great for MS because it basically makes it impossible to have a free web browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>USB , PCI , AGP etc are hardware standards , you may have to license them to create hardware which supports them but you certainly do n't need to pay anything if you just want to create software that drives such devices.Hardware can not be made for free anyway , therefore the licensing cost merely goes in with all the other manufacturing and raw materials costs...Software on the other hand can be made for free unless you start introducing artificial restrictions like having to license a media format.Something like this is great for MS because it basically makes it impossible to have a free web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USB, PCI, AGP etc are hardware standards, you may have to license them to create hardware which supports them but you certainly don't need to pay anything if you just want to create software that drives such devices.Hardware cannot be made for free anyway, therefore the licensing cost merely goes in with all the other manufacturing and raw materials costs...Software on the other hand can be made for free unless you start introducing artificial restrictions like having to license a media format.Something like this is great for MS because it basically makes it impossible to have a free web browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880540</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264362120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How exactly do "dominoes topple" if not only they can easily support Theora but also it is a very easy way to avoid licensing costs?  Support for H.264 is not free, you know? Didn't you even read the part in the summary that reads "the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010."?</p></div><p>H.264 licensing fees are capped at a few million a year for unlimited usage.  The big video-sharing sites are already paying the full fees, so using less H.264 doesn't actually lower their costs.  Five million dollars a year is nothing to a company like Google anyway.  If MPEG-LA goes insane and decides it can try to get users to pay for video players at the end of this year, then great, Theora wins, but I doubt it will happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly do " dominoes topple " if not only they can easily support Theora but also it is a very easy way to avoid licensing costs ?
Support for H.264 is not free , you know ?
Did n't you even read the part in the summary that reads " the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010 .
" ? H.264 licensing fees are capped at a few million a year for unlimited usage .
The big video-sharing sites are already paying the full fees , so using less H.264 does n't actually lower their costs .
Five million dollars a year is nothing to a company like Google anyway .
If MPEG-LA goes insane and decides it can try to get users to pay for video players at the end of this year , then great , Theora wins , but I doubt it will happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly do "dominoes topple" if not only they can easily support Theora but also it is a very easy way to avoid licensing costs?
Support for H.264 is not free, you know?
Didn't you even read the part in the summary that reads "the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010.
"?H.264 licensing fees are capped at a few million a year for unlimited usage.
The big video-sharing sites are already paying the full fees, so using less H.264 doesn't actually lower their costs.
Five million dollars a year is nothing to a company like Google anyway.
If MPEG-LA goes insane and decides it can try to get users to pay for video players at the end of this year, then great, Theora wins, but I doubt it will happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882540</id>
	<title>Re:How to silently kill firefox</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1264329840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhh... interesting? That's a bit nutty if you ask me.</p><p>Firefox has helped Google chop away at Microsoft's stranglehold on the web. It's helped Google more than any other browser.</p><p>Now Google owns Youtube and has big red numbers in their balance books. When examining bandwidth costs, H.264 just makes sense.</p><p>Profit is the goal, but there's no malice involved, and no conspiracy to kill Firefox. Plus, according to a thread from a few days ago, Firefox is working on the same solution as Opera (GStreamer based plugin) - they just don't <i>want</i> to implement it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh... interesting ? That 's a bit nutty if you ask me.Firefox has helped Google chop away at Microsoft 's stranglehold on the web .
It 's helped Google more than any other browser.Now Google owns Youtube and has big red numbers in their balance books .
When examining bandwidth costs , H.264 just makes sense.Profit is the goal , but there 's no malice involved , and no conspiracy to kill Firefox .
Plus , according to a thread from a few days ago , Firefox is working on the same solution as Opera ( GStreamer based plugin ) - they just do n't want to implement it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh... interesting? That's a bit nutty if you ask me.Firefox has helped Google chop away at Microsoft's stranglehold on the web.
It's helped Google more than any other browser.Now Google owns Youtube and has big red numbers in their balance books.
When examining bandwidth costs, H.264 just makes sense.Profit is the goal, but there's no malice involved, and no conspiracy to kill Firefox.
Plus, according to a thread from a few days ago, Firefox is working on the same solution as Opera (GStreamer based plugin) - they just don't want to implement it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879570</id>
	<title>Re:FFmpeg</title>
	<author>chilvence</author>
	<datestamp>1264357500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree, if no one is prepared to put themselves at risk to see just what happens in the real world, then we end up in the situation we are in now, where the software patents are 100\% effective at stifling the motivation of the competition. If people are afraid to even freely take code that is available and use it, then something is very wrong with the picture...</p><p>Let's say Mozilla did use ffmpeg to sidestep the whole licence issue - at the very least, it would force the mpeg group to get off their perch and get their hands bloody, then we'd see the true colours eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree , if no one is prepared to put themselves at risk to see just what happens in the real world , then we end up in the situation we are in now , where the software patents are 100 \ % effective at stifling the motivation of the competition .
If people are afraid to even freely take code that is available and use it , then something is very wrong with the picture...Let 's say Mozilla did use ffmpeg to sidestep the whole licence issue - at the very least , it would force the mpeg group to get off their perch and get their hands bloody , then we 'd see the true colours eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree, if no one is prepared to put themselves at risk to see just what happens in the real world, then we end up in the situation we are in now, where the software patents are 100\% effective at stifling the motivation of the competition.
If people are afraid to even freely take code that is available and use it, then something is very wrong with the picture...Let's say Mozilla did use ffmpeg to sidestep the whole licence issue - at the very least, it would force the mpeg group to get off their perch and get their hands bloody, then we'd see the true colours eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878590</id>
	<title>The route of mp3?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264351440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't somebody own the rights to mp3, and technically, all users and content providers should pay royalties?  Does that stop anyone from freely including decoders and distributing mp3 content?

Here's hoping that H.264 goes that route, and unofficial, but well-recognized plugins for Firefox support emerge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't somebody own the rights to mp3 , and technically , all users and content providers should pay royalties ?
Does that stop anyone from freely including decoders and distributing mp3 content ?
Here 's hoping that H.264 goes that route , and unofficial , but well-recognized plugins for Firefox support emerge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't somebody own the rights to mp3, and technically, all users and content providers should pay royalties?
Does that stop anyone from freely including decoders and distributing mp3 content?
Here's hoping that H.264 goes that route, and unofficial, but well-recognized plugins for Firefox support emerge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894790</id>
	<title>Re:software patents are immoral</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1264410180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can do it on an individual level, but we can't do it on other levels - IP police might not manage to catch every individual, but if the Mozilla foundation were to itself violate patent/copyright protections, it would lose. I agree with you on what should happen in the long run, but we shouldn't expect Mozilla to die for our beliefs. They have to fight this on another level, by simply steering away frm proprietary codecs when possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can do it on an individual level , but we ca n't do it on other levels - IP police might not manage to catch every individual , but if the Mozilla foundation were to itself violate patent/copyright protections , it would lose .
I agree with you on what should happen in the long run , but we should n't expect Mozilla to die for our beliefs .
They have to fight this on another level , by simply steering away frm proprietary codecs when possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can do it on an individual level, but we can't do it on other levels - IP police might not manage to catch every individual, but if the Mozilla foundation were to itself violate patent/copyright protections, it would lose.
I agree with you on what should happen in the long run, but we shouldn't expect Mozilla to die for our beliefs.
They have to fight this on another level, by simply steering away frm proprietary codecs when possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879422</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264356480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that's only part of the problem.  The other part is that Mozilla incorporates code from third parties (i.e. all of the community developers) which is released under the GPL/MPL/LGPL.  All of these clauses contain patent clauses when prohibit redistribution if the code contains patents that you can't grant redistribution rights for.  That makes it impossible for Mozilla to include <i>any</i> patented code unless they get a license which allows unlimited sublicensing.  The MPEG-LA isn't going to allow this, because anyone who got a copy of FireFox would then not have to pay them royalties.  </p><p>
The only way around this is for them to provide hooks for connecting DirectShow / QuickTime / FFMPEG for playback (which is what they should be doing anyway - you can already use them via object or embed tags, the only difference with video is that you have a uniform way of accessing them via scripting, rather than lots of different ad-hoc ways).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that 's only part of the problem .
The other part is that Mozilla incorporates code from third parties ( i.e .
all of the community developers ) which is released under the GPL/MPL/LGPL .
All of these clauses contain patent clauses when prohibit redistribution if the code contains patents that you ca n't grant redistribution rights for .
That makes it impossible for Mozilla to include any patented code unless they get a license which allows unlimited sublicensing .
The MPEG-LA is n't going to allow this , because anyone who got a copy of FireFox would then not have to pay them royalties .
The only way around this is for them to provide hooks for connecting DirectShow / QuickTime / FFMPEG for playback ( which is what they should be doing anyway - you can already use them via object or embed tags , the only difference with video is that you have a uniform way of accessing them via scripting , rather than lots of different ad-hoc ways ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that's only part of the problem.
The other part is that Mozilla incorporates code from third parties (i.e.
all of the community developers) which is released under the GPL/MPL/LGPL.
All of these clauses contain patent clauses when prohibit redistribution if the code contains patents that you can't grant redistribution rights for.
That makes it impossible for Mozilla to include any patented code unless they get a license which allows unlimited sublicensing.
The MPEG-LA isn't going to allow this, because anyone who got a copy of FireFox would then not have to pay them royalties.
The only way around this is for them to provide hooks for connecting DirectShow / QuickTime / FFMPEG for playback (which is what they should be doing anyway - you can already use them via object or embed tags, the only difference with video is that you have a uniform way of accessing them via scripting, rather than lots of different ad-hoc ways).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879006</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1264353840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My prediction? Canonical will fork it as Mark Shuttleworth's vision of Ubuntu is that "it just works".</p></div><p>Haha, yeah right.  Anyway, I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to the US software industry having disappeared into a black hole or become irrelevant.  Last I checked, the software industry here is still very much active and relevant, and I haven't seen any <i>real</i> evidence to suggest that that will change any time soon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My prediction ?
Canonical will fork it as Mark Shuttleworth 's vision of Ubuntu is that " it just works " .Haha , yeah right .
Anyway , I 'm not sure what you 're talking about with regards to the US software industry having disappeared into a black hole or become irrelevant .
Last I checked , the software industry here is still very much active and relevant , and I have n't seen any real evidence to suggest that that will change any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My prediction?
Canonical will fork it as Mark Shuttleworth's vision of Ubuntu is that "it just works".Haha, yeah right.
Anyway, I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to the US software industry having disappeared into a black hole or become irrelevant.
Last I checked, the software industry here is still very much active and relevant, and I haven't seen any real evidence to suggest that that will change any time soon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894554</id>
	<title>Re:Denial will not fix things.</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1264452360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just bind to ffmpeg/ffdshow/CoreVideo. They all support H.264, and your responsibility is zero.</i></p><p>Their legitimate complaint is fear of compromise through buggy plug-ins.</p><p>But the solution is to sandbox the plug-ins, not restrict the plug-ins artificially.  Oh, wait, that's hard with the 1990's application architecture Firefox is built on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just bind to ffmpeg/ffdshow/CoreVideo .
They all support H.264 , and your responsibility is zero.Their legitimate complaint is fear of compromise through buggy plug-ins.But the solution is to sandbox the plug-ins , not restrict the plug-ins artificially .
Oh , wait , that 's hard with the 1990 's application architecture Firefox is built on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just bind to ffmpeg/ffdshow/CoreVideo.
They all support H.264, and your responsibility is zero.Their legitimate complaint is fear of compromise through buggy plug-ins.But the solution is to sandbox the plug-ins, not restrict the plug-ins artificially.
Oh, wait, that's hard with the 1990's application architecture Firefox is built on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878624</id>
	<title>Re:Just open up the video architecture</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1264351680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>roc has explained <a href="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow\_and.html" title="mozillazine.org" rel="nofollow">why using DirectShow in Mozilla's Gecko won't happen in the foreseeable future</a> [mozillazine.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>roc has explained why using DirectShow in Mozilla 's Gecko wo n't happen in the foreseeable future [ mozillazine.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>roc has explained why using DirectShow in Mozilla's Gecko won't happen in the foreseeable future [mozillazine.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880428</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 allows multiple codecs to be specified</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1264361580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having to deal with multiple video formats means either increased storage requirements or processor requirements. I believe the reason for trying to standardise the supported video formats to a limited selection, is the same one for limiting the number of image formats officially supported by web pages: ensuring the content is viewable everywhere. If the specification said do what you want, we would see half a dozen different formats, browser supporting some of them and the users being caught in the cross-fire.</p><p>The day an Ogg endcoder/decoder is made available for things like Adobe Premiere, Final Cut, Quicktime and Windows Media Player, using a BSD style license and also focus on quality for a given bit rate, then we aren't going to see widespread adoption.</p><p>While Ogg might be fine, it is not packaged as a solution suitable for commercial products. At the same time the MP4/H264 licensing means it is not suitable for open source. We have clash of cultures and each is wanting to stand in their ivory tower, and not come down to Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having to deal with multiple video formats means either increased storage requirements or processor requirements .
I believe the reason for trying to standardise the supported video formats to a limited selection , is the same one for limiting the number of image formats officially supported by web pages : ensuring the content is viewable everywhere .
If the specification said do what you want , we would see half a dozen different formats , browser supporting some of them and the users being caught in the cross-fire.The day an Ogg endcoder/decoder is made available for things like Adobe Premiere , Final Cut , Quicktime and Windows Media Player , using a BSD style license and also focus on quality for a given bit rate , then we are n't going to see widespread adoption.While Ogg might be fine , it is not packaged as a solution suitable for commercial products .
At the same time the MP4/H264 licensing means it is not suitable for open source .
We have clash of cultures and each is wanting to stand in their ivory tower , and not come down to Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having to deal with multiple video formats means either increased storage requirements or processor requirements.
I believe the reason for trying to standardise the supported video formats to a limited selection, is the same one for limiting the number of image formats officially supported by web pages: ensuring the content is viewable everywhere.
If the specification said do what you want, we would see half a dozen different formats, browser supporting some of them and the users being caught in the cross-fire.The day an Ogg endcoder/decoder is made available for things like Adobe Premiere, Final Cut, Quicktime and Windows Media Player, using a BSD style license and also focus on quality for a given bit rate, then we aren't going to see widespread adoption.While Ogg might be fine, it is not packaged as a solution suitable for commercial products.
At the same time the MP4/H264 licensing means it is not suitable for open source.
We have clash of cultures and each is wanting to stand in their ivory tower, and not come down to Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881372</id>
	<title>Re:More patent abuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264366380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ahh yes it may well be "useful, novel, and non-obvious" but it is very likely to be<br>manipulation of symbols - aka mathematics. You know that stuff you are not supposed<br>to be able to patent. Yes yes - a implementation of hardware/software can be patented but not<br>using a general purpose computing machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ahh yes it may well be " useful , novel , and non-obvious " but it is very likely to bemanipulation of symbols - aka mathematics .
You know that stuff you are not supposedto be able to patent .
Yes yes - a implementation of hardware/software can be patented but notusing a general purpose computing machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ahh yes it may well be "useful, novel, and non-obvious" but it is very likely to bemanipulation of symbols - aka mathematics.
You know that stuff you are not supposedto be able to patent.
Yes yes - a implementation of hardware/software can be patented but notusing a general purpose computing machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880920</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have enough market share to push us all towards Ogg instead for HTML5 video -- and I'm pretty sure that's where Google would rather go too. At this point, everything is in flash video and nobody complains about having to install a plugin to support it.  Are they going to suddenly cry foul if they need a plugin to support h264? My guess is if one format is easier, thanks to Firefox's stubborness, then many websites may simply adopt ogg as the standard in the first place.</p><p>
&nbsp; Apple, on the other hand, may not agree, but Safari is mostly irrelevant.  It sneaks in with iTunes (another terrible piece of software) but it's not actually used much.  It's currently 4th place in a 3-way competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have enough market share to push us all towards Ogg instead for HTML5 video -- and I 'm pretty sure that 's where Google would rather go too .
At this point , everything is in flash video and nobody complains about having to install a plugin to support it .
Are they going to suddenly cry foul if they need a plugin to support h264 ?
My guess is if one format is easier , thanks to Firefox 's stubborness , then many websites may simply adopt ogg as the standard in the first place .
  Apple , on the other hand , may not agree , but Safari is mostly irrelevant .
It sneaks in with iTunes ( another terrible piece of software ) but it 's not actually used much .
It 's currently 4th place in a 3-way competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have enough market share to push us all towards Ogg instead for HTML5 video -- and I'm pretty sure that's where Google would rather go too.
At this point, everything is in flash video and nobody complains about having to install a plugin to support it.
Are they going to suddenly cry foul if they need a plugin to support h264?
My guess is if one format is easier, thanks to Firefox's stubborness, then many websites may simply adopt ogg as the standard in the first place.
  Apple, on the other hand, may not agree, but Safari is mostly irrelevant.
It sneaks in with iTunes (another terrible piece of software) but it's not actually used much.
It's currently 4th place in a 3-way competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878682</id>
	<title>HTML5 allows multiple codecs to be specified</title>
	<author>jrincayc</author>
	<datestamp>1264351980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML5 allows multiple video or audio codecs to be provided.  Therefore, Youtube and Vimeo can provide both H.264 and Ogg Theora/Vorbis support.  If their concern is bandwidth, then they can just provide a slightly lower quality Ogg version with the same bandwidth usage.</p><p><a href="http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#the-source-element" title="whatwg.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#the-source-element</a> [whatwg.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 allows multiple video or audio codecs to be provided .
Therefore , Youtube and Vimeo can provide both H.264 and Ogg Theora/Vorbis support .
If their concern is bandwidth , then they can just provide a slightly lower quality Ogg version with the same bandwidth usage.http : //www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html # the-source-element [ whatwg.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 allows multiple video or audio codecs to be provided.
Therefore, Youtube and Vimeo can provide both H.264 and Ogg Theora/Vorbis support.
If their concern is bandwidth, then they can just provide a slightly lower quality Ogg version with the same bandwidth usage.http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#the-source-element [whatwg.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878892</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1264353240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's simply <b>impossible</b> for Mozilla to use it without dealing with the licensing issue.</p></div><p>That is completely true, they have no way to extend their license to all of the different distro versions (iceweasel and so on). Or they need major changes in their own licensing.</p><p>Google also cannot give it forward in Chrome's open source version, but they have licensed and use it with the closed source binaries. And if the other browsers will go forward and license H.264 anyway, Firefox has a serious problem to solve. Actually this would be a perfect opportunity for the other browsers to gain marketshare from Firefox and kill off its mainstream use (especially for Google, which has its hand over Firefox already by providing almost all of its income)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's simply impossible for Mozilla to use it without dealing with the licensing issue.That is completely true , they have no way to extend their license to all of the different distro versions ( iceweasel and so on ) .
Or they need major changes in their own licensing.Google also can not give it forward in Chrome 's open source version , but they have licensed and use it with the closed source binaries .
And if the other browsers will go forward and license H.264 anyway , Firefox has a serious problem to solve .
Actually this would be a perfect opportunity for the other browsers to gain marketshare from Firefox and kill off its mainstream use ( especially for Google , which has its hand over Firefox already by providing almost all of its income )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's simply impossible for Mozilla to use it without dealing with the licensing issue.That is completely true, they have no way to extend their license to all of the different distro versions (iceweasel and so on).
Or they need major changes in their own licensing.Google also cannot give it forward in Chrome's open source version, but they have licensed and use it with the closed source binaries.
And if the other browsers will go forward and license H.264 anyway, Firefox has a serious problem to solve.
Actually this would be a perfect opportunity for the other browsers to gain marketshare from Firefox and kill off its mainstream use (especially for Google, which has its hand over Firefox already by providing almost all of its income)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879590</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>zzyzyx</author>
	<datestamp>1264357560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a $2000 fee to buy a unique USB Vendor ID, and the right to use the USB logo for two years, which is pretty much mandatory if you want to make a commercial product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a $ 2000 fee to buy a unique USB Vendor ID , and the right to use the USB logo for two years , which is pretty much mandatory if you want to make a commercial product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a $2000 fee to buy a unique USB Vendor ID, and the right to use the USB logo for two years, which is pretty much mandatory if you want to make a commercial product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880560</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1264362240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera lets you block content. So I could block *.js on a site if I wanted. Or more likely I'd block the irritating ad providers by URL on all sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera lets you block content .
So I could block * .js on a site if I wanted .
Or more likely I 'd block the irritating ad providers by URL on all sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera lets you block content.
So I could block *.js on a site if I wanted.
Or more likely I'd block the irritating ad providers by URL on all sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</id>
	<title>Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264351080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the bitching about the patent/royalty situation ignores the following facts:</p><ul> <li>H.264 is hardware accelerated on nearly every platform, desktop and mobile - Ogg is not.</li><li>Ogg produces inferior video at the same bitrate as H.264, or larger video for the same quality.</li><li>YouTube, DailyMotion, and Vimeo have spoken in favor of H.264. Watch the dominoes topple.</li></ul><p>There are two alternatives here - Flash-based video and H.264. Don't kid yourself that Ogg is a third, because it's not going to happen. Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done. Otherwise, watch Chrome <b>really</b> destroy Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the bitching about the patent/royalty situation ignores the following facts : H.264 is hardware accelerated on nearly every platform , desktop and mobile - Ogg is not.Ogg produces inferior video at the same bitrate as H.264 , or larger video for the same quality.YouTube , DailyMotion , and Vimeo have spoken in favor of H.264 .
Watch the dominoes topple.There are two alternatives here - Flash-based video and H.264 .
Do n't kid yourself that Ogg is a third , because it 's not going to happen .
Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done .
Otherwise , watch Chrome really destroy Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the bitching about the patent/royalty situation ignores the following facts: H.264 is hardware accelerated on nearly every platform, desktop and mobile - Ogg is not.Ogg produces inferior video at the same bitrate as H.264, or larger video for the same quality.YouTube, DailyMotion, and Vimeo have spoken in favor of H.264.
Watch the dominoes topple.There are two alternatives here - Flash-based video and H.264.
Don't kid yourself that Ogg is a third, because it's not going to happen.
Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done.
Otherwise, watch Chrome really destroy Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878648</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1264351740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up. People need to get this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
People need to get this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
People need to get this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894640</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1264452900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's a good solution if it leaves Linux users out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's a good solution if it leaves Linux users out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's a good solution if it leaves Linux users out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879432</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1264356540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US. And to be honest, you can cry me a river. The US got itself into this mess, the US needs to get itself out of it</p></div><p>Slashdot is in the United States so please don't whine about this on a U.S. site.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Canonical will fork it as Mark Shuttleworth's vision of Ubuntu is that "it just works".</p></div><p>The United States market is large enough that "it doesn't just work in the United States" means "it doesn't just work" because the install disc would require onboard GPS so that it won't install on a machine on U.S. soil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>H.264 is a free and open standard , just not in the US .
And to be honest , you can cry me a river .
The US got itself into this mess , the US needs to get itself out of itSlashdot is in the United States so please do n't whine about this on a U.S. site.Canonical will fork it as Mark Shuttleworth 's vision of Ubuntu is that " it just works " .The United States market is large enough that " it does n't just work in the United States " means " it does n't just work " because the install disc would require onboard GPS so that it wo n't install on a machine on U.S. soil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US.
And to be honest, you can cry me a river.
The US got itself into this mess, the US needs to get itself out of itSlashdot is in the United States so please don't whine about this on a U.S. site.Canonical will fork it as Mark Shuttleworth's vision of Ubuntu is that "it just works".The United States market is large enough that "it doesn't just work in the United States" means "it doesn't just work" because the install disc would require onboard GPS so that it won't install on a machine on U.S. soil.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881870</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264326000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is <em>not</em> impossible for Mozilla to use h.264. They have several options for how to use it. </p></div><p>But all of them conflict with the Mozilla Foundation's mission, to provide a 100\% free web browsing stack, and to encourage a Web that can be fully experienced using that.</p><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We want to make sure that the Web experience is good for all users, present and future. I want to make sure that when a child in India or Brazil or Kenya discovers the internet, there isn&rsquo;t a big piece of it (video) that they can&rsquo;t afford to participate in. I want to make sure that there are no toll-booth barriers to entry for someone building a whole new browser, or bringing a browser to a whole new device or OS, or making and using tools for creating standard web content. And I want that not only altruistically, but also because I want the crazy awesome video (animation, peer-to-peer, security, etc.) ideas that will come from having more people, with more perspectives, fully participating in the internet. The web is undeniably better for Mozilla having entered the browser market, and it would have been impossible for us to do so if there had been a multi-million-dollar licensing fee required for handling HTML, CSS, JavaScript or the like.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not impossible for Mozilla to use h.264 .
They have several options for how to use it .
But all of them conflict with the Mozilla Foundation 's mission , to provide a 100 \ % free web browsing stack , and to encourage a Web that can be fully experienced using that.From TFA : We want to make sure that the Web experience is good for all users , present and future .
I want to make sure that when a child in India or Brazil or Kenya discovers the internet , there isn    t a big piece of it ( video ) that they can    t afford to participate in .
I want to make sure that there are no toll-booth barriers to entry for someone building a whole new browser , or bringing a browser to a whole new device or OS , or making and using tools for creating standard web content .
And I want that not only altruistically , but also because I want the crazy awesome video ( animation , peer-to-peer , security , etc .
) ideas that will come from having more people , with more perspectives , fully participating in the internet .
The web is undeniably better for Mozilla having entered the browser market , and it would have been impossible for us to do so if there had been a multi-million-dollar licensing fee required for handling HTML , CSS , JavaScript or the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not impossible for Mozilla to use h.264.
They have several options for how to use it.
But all of them conflict with the Mozilla Foundation's mission, to provide a 100\% free web browsing stack, and to encourage a Web that can be fully experienced using that.From TFA:We want to make sure that the Web experience is good for all users, present and future.
I want to make sure that when a child in India or Brazil or Kenya discovers the internet, there isn’t a big piece of it (video) that they can’t afford to participate in.
I want to make sure that there are no toll-booth barriers to entry for someone building a whole new browser, or bringing a browser to a whole new device or OS, or making and using tools for creating standard web content.
And I want that not only altruistically, but also because I want the crazy awesome video (animation, peer-to-peer, security, etc.
) ideas that will come from having more people, with more perspectives, fully participating in the internet.
The web is undeniably better for Mozilla having entered the browser market, and it would have been impossible for us to do so if there had been a multi-million-dollar licensing fee required for handling HTML, CSS, JavaScript or the like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362</id>
	<title>HTML5 Video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264349640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's mostly just problem for Mozilla</p><p>- Microsoft can probably work out a pretty good deal with MPEG-LA, and licensing technology is no problem for MS.<br>- Google aswell and they have to support it on YouTube anyway.<br>- Opera is a commercial product and they do a lot of business in embedded devices, mobile phones, wii and tv's and so on. They probably want to get a tech to play video for devices without new Flash versions (especially since it's 100\% Adobe's responsibility to update Flash on those devices and Opera can't do much about it)<br>- Apple definitely needs to support it in MAC OSX and maybe iPhone too, so WebKit and Safari will most likely support it.</p><p>Like with the previous case about <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/19/166254/Why-Firefoxs-Future-Lies-In-Googles-Hands" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Firefox's funding</a> [slashdot.org], Mozilla is alone with this. All of the other browser makers have created themself larger reasons to license it.</p><p>Since Firefox already has it's Gecko engine and wide range of plugins, why don't they make themself more reasons to forget about Flash and start using open standards? There is a huge market in mobile phone browsers which IE mobile and Opera currently dominate (safari is pretty much just used on iPhone). There's definitely a need for HTML 5 video on those devices and it would create more marketshare and support for Firefox, and HTML 5 Video is something that would actually push HTML5 forwards. Otherwise web developers don't have any reason to move forward from old standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's mostly just problem for Mozilla- Microsoft can probably work out a pretty good deal with MPEG-LA , and licensing technology is no problem for MS.- Google aswell and they have to support it on YouTube anyway.- Opera is a commercial product and they do a lot of business in embedded devices , mobile phones , wii and tv 's and so on .
They probably want to get a tech to play video for devices without new Flash versions ( especially since it 's 100 \ % Adobe 's responsibility to update Flash on those devices and Opera ca n't do much about it ) - Apple definitely needs to support it in MAC OSX and maybe iPhone too , so WebKit and Safari will most likely support it.Like with the previous case about Firefox 's funding [ slashdot.org ] , Mozilla is alone with this .
All of the other browser makers have created themself larger reasons to license it.Since Firefox already has it 's Gecko engine and wide range of plugins , why do n't they make themself more reasons to forget about Flash and start using open standards ?
There is a huge market in mobile phone browsers which IE mobile and Opera currently dominate ( safari is pretty much just used on iPhone ) .
There 's definitely a need for HTML 5 video on those devices and it would create more marketshare and support for Firefox , and HTML 5 Video is something that would actually push HTML5 forwards .
Otherwise web developers do n't have any reason to move forward from old standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's mostly just problem for Mozilla- Microsoft can probably work out a pretty good deal with MPEG-LA, and licensing technology is no problem for MS.- Google aswell and they have to support it on YouTube anyway.- Opera is a commercial product and they do a lot of business in embedded devices, mobile phones, wii and tv's and so on.
They probably want to get a tech to play video for devices without new Flash versions (especially since it's 100\% Adobe's responsibility to update Flash on those devices and Opera can't do much about it)- Apple definitely needs to support it in MAC OSX and maybe iPhone too, so WebKit and Safari will most likely support it.Like with the previous case about Firefox's funding [slashdot.org], Mozilla is alone with this.
All of the other browser makers have created themself larger reasons to license it.Since Firefox already has it's Gecko engine and wide range of plugins, why don't they make themself more reasons to forget about Flash and start using open standards?
There is a huge market in mobile phone browsers which IE mobile and Opera currently dominate (safari is pretty much just used on iPhone).
There's definitely a need for HTML 5 video on those devices and it would create more marketshare and support for Firefox, and HTML 5 Video is something that would actually push HTML5 forwards.
Otherwise web developers don't have any reason to move forward from old standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880412</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1264361520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Windows, Mac, Linux -- US corporations are the primary workers on the kernel, Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, Linus lives in the US)</p></div><p>Just to nitpick a bit. Suse was a German company, but they got bought up by Novell. But I guess most of Suse users are in Germany.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Windows , Mac , Linux -- US corporations are the primary workers on the kernel , Red Hat , Novell , Oracle , Linus lives in the US ) Just to nitpick a bit .
Suse was a German company , but they got bought up by Novell .
But I guess most of Suse users are in Germany .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Windows, Mac, Linux -- US corporations are the primary workers on the kernel, Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, Linus lives in the US)Just to nitpick a bit.
Suse was a German company, but they got bought up by Novell.
But I guess most of Suse users are in Germany.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881970</id>
	<title>Denial will not fix things.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264326720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially refusal to live in reality.</p><p>As I previously said:<br>Firefox does not need to do anything!<br>Just bind to ffmpeg/ffdshow/CoreVideo. They all support H.264, and your responsibility is <em>zero</em>.<br>You can still fall back to Theora, even if nobody will actually ever use it in the real world.</p><p>There is no either/or here. There is not even a compromise. You can have all your wishes and dreamy ideals, <em>and</em> we can have H.264.<br>The whole problem is made-up. And only kept alive trough continued denial and ignorance of what I just said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially refusal to live in reality.As I previously said : Firefox does not need to do anything ! Just bind to ffmpeg/ffdshow/CoreVideo .
They all support H.264 , and your responsibility is zero.You can still fall back to Theora , even if nobody will actually ever use it in the real world.There is no either/or here .
There is not even a compromise .
You can have all your wishes and dreamy ideals , and we can have H.264.The whole problem is made-up .
And only kept alive trough continued denial and ignorance of what I just said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially refusal to live in reality.As I previously said:Firefox does not need to do anything!Just bind to ffmpeg/ffdshow/CoreVideo.
They all support H.264, and your responsibility is zero.You can still fall back to Theora, even if nobody will actually ever use it in the real world.There is no either/or here.
There is not even a compromise.
You can have all your wishes and dreamy ideals, and we can have H.264.The whole problem is made-up.
And only kept alive trough continued denial and ignorance of what I just said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879102</id>
	<title>We shouldn't wish to be forced to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264354560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... pay to create and distribute video content or having to upload it on the few big sites that have enough money to pay the royalties to MPEG-LA.</p><p>We might decide to use h.264 anyway because it's technically better but what I expect is that customers and content creators should be happier to see a totally free codec succeed over one that will cost them money.</p><p>Youtube, Vimeo &amp; Co are trying to use h.264 to become the new majors. I understand why those companies don't want a free codec to succeed: that would lead to more competition and less ways to profit from their position. I'm afraid that in this case their best interests are our worst interests.</p><p>Think if it happened to images. You could only legally upload graphics to Flickr, Facebook and a few dozens of other big sites with the money to pay royalties. All vacation pictures and UI buttons would have to go there. Figuring out what the web would look like is left as an exercise to the reader.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... pay to create and distribute video content or having to upload it on the few big sites that have enough money to pay the royalties to MPEG-LA.We might decide to use h.264 anyway because it 's technically better but what I expect is that customers and content creators should be happier to see a totally free codec succeed over one that will cost them money.Youtube , Vimeo &amp; Co are trying to use h.264 to become the new majors .
I understand why those companies do n't want a free codec to succeed : that would lead to more competition and less ways to profit from their position .
I 'm afraid that in this case their best interests are our worst interests.Think if it happened to images .
You could only legally upload graphics to Flickr , Facebook and a few dozens of other big sites with the money to pay royalties .
All vacation pictures and UI buttons would have to go there .
Figuring out what the web would look like is left as an exercise to the reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... pay to create and distribute video content or having to upload it on the few big sites that have enough money to pay the royalties to MPEG-LA.We might decide to use h.264 anyway because it's technically better but what I expect is that customers and content creators should be happier to see a totally free codec succeed over one that will cost them money.Youtube, Vimeo &amp; Co are trying to use h.264 to become the new majors.
I understand why those companies don't want a free codec to succeed: that would lead to more competition and less ways to profit from their position.
I'm afraid that in this case their best interests are our worst interests.Think if it happened to images.
You could only legally upload graphics to Flickr, Facebook and a few dozens of other big sites with the money to pay royalties.
All vacation pictures and UI buttons would have to go there.
Figuring out what the web would look like is left as an exercise to the reader.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878632</id>
	<title>Free software from Google my ***</title>
	<author>suffix tree monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264351740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, "free software from Google" indeed - too bad us Joe Sixpacks can't distribute it, only companies with the proper patent license portfolio can. If this debate tells us (free software fans) something, it's that it's time to move to GPL 3 before things get way worse.</p><p>And to all you people who don't care about this and just want their videos to work:</p><p>This video^H^H^H^H^H opinion is no longer available in your country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , " free software from Google " indeed - too bad us Joe Sixpacks ca n't distribute it , only companies with the proper patent license portfolio can .
If this debate tells us ( free software fans ) something , it 's that it 's time to move to GPL 3 before things get way worse.And to all you people who do n't care about this and just want their videos to work : This video ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H opinion is no longer available in your country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, "free software from Google" indeed - too bad us Joe Sixpacks can't distribute it, only companies with the proper patent license portfolio can.
If this debate tells us (free software fans) something, it's that it's time to move to GPL 3 before things get way worse.And to all you people who don't care about this and just want their videos to work:This video^H^H^H^H^H opinion is no longer available in your country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879306</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1264355580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Little problem: Even if Mozilla caves in and pays the license fee, that does not cover anyone else distributing Firefox. Canonical would <em>also</em> have to pay the $5 million for Ubuntu's browser. Firefox would effectively no longer be open source as it would be illegal to compile it (with H.264 support) and distribute the resulting binary.</p></div><p>Open source is not necessarily free. The majority of development contributions, like with most successful "open source" products comes from inside of the mozilla foundation staff. This was true with MySQL as well. They could easily have the main "open source tree" and then have a source branch which referenced the main tree and H264 code. The binaries with H264 support would only be available from the Mozzila foundation directly. Firefox could also be dual licensed for inclusion in commercial products to cover the cost of h264 licensing. Another alternative would be to offer H264 as an optional add-on for Firefox for a small fee to cover H264 licensing and support Firefox development. Problem solved.
</p><p>
Where I work, we have some common code shared between source trees of different product groups that show up as "external" in an SVN update so I know that open source source control products like SVN can do what I'm describing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Little problem : Even if Mozilla caves in and pays the license fee , that does not cover anyone else distributing Firefox .
Canonical would also have to pay the $ 5 million for Ubuntu 's browser .
Firefox would effectively no longer be open source as it would be illegal to compile it ( with H.264 support ) and distribute the resulting binary.Open source is not necessarily free .
The majority of development contributions , like with most successful " open source " products comes from inside of the mozilla foundation staff .
This was true with MySQL as well .
They could easily have the main " open source tree " and then have a source branch which referenced the main tree and H264 code .
The binaries with H264 support would only be available from the Mozzila foundation directly .
Firefox could also be dual licensed for inclusion in commercial products to cover the cost of h264 licensing .
Another alternative would be to offer H264 as an optional add-on for Firefox for a small fee to cover H264 licensing and support Firefox development .
Problem solved .
Where I work , we have some common code shared between source trees of different product groups that show up as " external " in an SVN update so I know that open source source control products like SVN can do what I 'm describing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Little problem: Even if Mozilla caves in and pays the license fee, that does not cover anyone else distributing Firefox.
Canonical would also have to pay the $5 million for Ubuntu's browser.
Firefox would effectively no longer be open source as it would be illegal to compile it (with H.264 support) and distribute the resulting binary.Open source is not necessarily free.
The majority of development contributions, like with most successful "open source" products comes from inside of the mozilla foundation staff.
This was true with MySQL as well.
They could easily have the main "open source tree" and then have a source branch which referenced the main tree and H264 code.
The binaries with H264 support would only be available from the Mozzila foundation directly.
Firefox could also be dual licensed for inclusion in commercial products to cover the cost of h264 licensing.
Another alternative would be to offer H264 as an optional add-on for Firefox for a small fee to cover H264 licensing and support Firefox development.
Problem solved.
Where I work, we have some common code shared between source trees of different product groups that show up as "external" in an SVN update so I know that open source source control products like SVN can do what I'm describing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880876</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1264363620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>And yet even with a perfectly legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against H.264, tons of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comments will go against FF's decision to promote an open, free (for everyone, not just the end users) and sane video standard over a proprietary one, ensuring that only people with lots of money can create browsers, run video sites, etc.</i>



It's time Americans stopped thinking of themselves as the centre of world technology. If Mozilla is determined to follow US law only and therefore not implement H.264 because it's encumbered with license fees there due to dumb local laws, then it is going to go the same way as the whole US software industry - it will disappear into a black hole of law suits and legal action and very quickly become irrelevant.



H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US. And to be honest, you can cry me a river. The US got itself into this mess, the US needs to get itself out of it, because quite honestly, the rest of the world is not going to wait around in the meantime.



My prediction? Canonical will fork it as Mark Shuttleworth's vision of Ubuntu is that "it just works". If the only way for him to achieve that is to fork Mozilla, then that is what I'm sure he'll at least consider doing.</p></div><p>Not to rain on our parade but H.264 is internationally patented up the wazzu, so spare me the American selfish slant. All those companies playing nice outside of US Borders are doing so knowing that the bulk of profiteering is made in the US, period. They were willing to place nice in the EU so they can continue to gain R&amp;D returns on their investments, back within the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet even with a perfectly legitimate , reasonable , intelligent argument against H.264 , tons of / .
comments will go against FF 's decision to promote an open , free ( for everyone , not just the end users ) and sane video standard over a proprietary one , ensuring that only people with lots of money can create browsers , run video sites , etc .
It 's time Americans stopped thinking of themselves as the centre of world technology .
If Mozilla is determined to follow US law only and therefore not implement H.264 because it 's encumbered with license fees there due to dumb local laws , then it is going to go the same way as the whole US software industry - it will disappear into a black hole of law suits and legal action and very quickly become irrelevant .
H.264 is a free and open standard , just not in the US .
And to be honest , you can cry me a river .
The US got itself into this mess , the US needs to get itself out of it , because quite honestly , the rest of the world is not going to wait around in the meantime .
My prediction ?
Canonical will fork it as Mark Shuttleworth 's vision of Ubuntu is that " it just works " .
If the only way for him to achieve that is to fork Mozilla , then that is what I 'm sure he 'll at least consider doing.Not to rain on our parade but H.264 is internationally patented up the wazzu , so spare me the American selfish slant .
All those companies playing nice outside of US Borders are doing so knowing that the bulk of profiteering is made in the US , period .
They were willing to place nice in the EU so they can continue to gain R&amp;D returns on their investments , back within the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And yet even with a perfectly legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against H.264, tons of /.
comments will go against FF's decision to promote an open, free (for everyone, not just the end users) and sane video standard over a proprietary one, ensuring that only people with lots of money can create browsers, run video sites, etc.
It's time Americans stopped thinking of themselves as the centre of world technology.
If Mozilla is determined to follow US law only and therefore not implement H.264 because it's encumbered with license fees there due to dumb local laws, then it is going to go the same way as the whole US software industry - it will disappear into a black hole of law suits and legal action and very quickly become irrelevant.
H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US.
And to be honest, you can cry me a river.
The US got itself into this mess, the US needs to get itself out of it, because quite honestly, the rest of the world is not going to wait around in the meantime.
My prediction?
Canonical will fork it as Mark Shuttleworth's vision of Ubuntu is that "it just works".
If the only way for him to achieve that is to fork Mozilla, then that is what I'm sure he'll at least consider doing.Not to rain on our parade but H.264 is internationally patented up the wazzu, so spare me the American selfish slant.
All those companies playing nice outside of US Borders are doing so knowing that the bulk of profiteering is made in the US, period.
They were willing to place nice in the EU so they can continue to gain R&amp;D returns on their investments, back within the US.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880100</id>
	<title>Offload to Video Card</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the license fee for h.264 has already been paid by the video card company for on-card decoding, could Firefox offload the decoding, forgoing the need for a redundant license?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the license fee for h.264 has already been paid by the video card company for on-card decoding , could Firefox offload the decoding , forgoing the need for a redundant license ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the license fee for h.264 has already been paid by the video card company for on-card decoding, could Firefox offload the decoding, forgoing the need for a redundant license?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881052</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264364700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open free code that may be illegal to use, depending on what country you're in, without paying MPEG LA.</p><p>Sure, you can probably get away with it for a while for personal use, even for a small-fry web site. As soon as you're big enough to get noticed, they'll come after you with an invoice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open free code that may be illegal to use , depending on what country you 're in , without paying MPEG LA.Sure , you can probably get away with it for a while for personal use , even for a small-fry web site .
As soon as you 're big enough to get noticed , they 'll come after you with an invoice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open free code that may be illegal to use, depending on what country you're in, without paying MPEG LA.Sure, you can probably get away with it for a while for personal use, even for a small-fry web site.
As soon as you're big enough to get noticed, they'll come after you with an invoice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880522</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1264362060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, Opera is also behind Theora (heck, they proposed video tag back then). Though  people portraying this as only Mozilla doing the "right thing" is only...typical.</p><p><a href="http://my.opera.com/core/blog/2009/12/31/re-introducing-video" title="opera.com">http://my.opera.com/core/blog/2009/12/31/re-introducing-video</a> [opera.com]</p><p>BTW, Debian folks would really argue about the extent to which Firefox or Seamonkey are free...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , Opera is also behind Theora ( heck , they proposed video tag back then ) .
Though people portraying this as only Mozilla doing the " right thing " is only...typical.http : //my.opera.com/core/blog/2009/12/31/re-introducing-video [ opera.com ] BTW , Debian folks would really argue about the extent to which Firefox or Seamonkey are free.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, Opera is also behind Theora (heck, they proposed video tag back then).
Though  people portraying this as only Mozilla doing the "right thing" is only...typical.http://my.opera.com/core/blog/2009/12/31/re-introducing-video [opera.com]BTW, Debian folks would really argue about the extent to which Firefox or Seamonkey are free...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883994</id>
	<title>Challenge: Build a better codec fast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264339200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The challenge is to build a better codec fast.  A better codec that is covered under the GNU GPL would stop H.264 in its tracks.  Until then, we have H.264.  I know Apple has turned into the new Microsoft, so they want to push lock in and proprietary formats and the HTML5  tag doesn't specify a codec, so Ogg Theorea or H.264 could both be used, but Apple whined they like H.264 (they created it).  It screws everyone else though, and makes Firefox users disgruntled.  <b>I think its time to kill proprietary video and audio codecs on the internet.  If you want to poison your own users, then fine.  The internet is a public forum.  Proprietary has no place here.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The challenge is to build a better codec fast .
A better codec that is covered under the GNU GPL would stop H.264 in its tracks .
Until then , we have H.264 .
I know Apple has turned into the new Microsoft , so they want to push lock in and proprietary formats and the HTML5 tag does n't specify a codec , so Ogg Theorea or H.264 could both be used , but Apple whined they like H.264 ( they created it ) .
It screws everyone else though , and makes Firefox users disgruntled .
I think its time to kill proprietary video and audio codecs on the internet .
If you want to poison your own users , then fine .
The internet is a public forum .
Proprietary has no place here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The challenge is to build a better codec fast.
A better codec that is covered under the GNU GPL would stop H.264 in its tracks.
Until then, we have H.264.
I know Apple has turned into the new Microsoft, so they want to push lock in and proprietary formats and the HTML5  tag doesn't specify a codec, so Ogg Theorea or H.264 could both be used, but Apple whined they like H.264 (they created it).
It screws everyone else though, and makes Firefox users disgruntled.
I think its time to kill proprietary video and audio codecs on the internet.
If you want to poison your own users, then fine.
The internet is a public forum.
Proprietary has no place here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879204</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264354980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>debunk time<br>- H264 is hardware accelerated on many platforms; not nearly every. Oh dear, far from it<br>- theora is arguably better than h264 in some conditions, and slightly worse in other conditions. all considered, they're quite similar. and theora doesnt have a lot of folks optimizing it like h264.<br>- dailymotion supports theora in html5 and firefox plays the videos just fine</p><p>h264 winning means destroying part of our freedom, how do you see it as a good thing? its good for the corporate world (lock in, very high fee requirement to enter the marke), bad for the consumers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>debunk time- H264 is hardware accelerated on many platforms ; not nearly every .
Oh dear , far from it- theora is arguably better than h264 in some conditions , and slightly worse in other conditions .
all considered , they 're quite similar .
and theora doesnt have a lot of folks optimizing it like h264.- dailymotion supports theora in html5 and firefox plays the videos just fineh264 winning means destroying part of our freedom , how do you see it as a good thing ?
its good for the corporate world ( lock in , very high fee requirement to enter the marke ) , bad for the consumers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>debunk time- H264 is hardware accelerated on many platforms; not nearly every.
Oh dear, far from it- theora is arguably better than h264 in some conditions, and slightly worse in other conditions.
all considered, they're quite similar.
and theora doesnt have a lot of folks optimizing it like h264.- dailymotion supports theora in html5 and firefox plays the videos just fineh264 winning means destroying part of our freedom, how do you see it as a good thing?
its good for the corporate world (lock in, very high fee requirement to enter the marke), bad for the consumers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880286</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>mad.frog</author>
	<datestamp>1264360980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US.</p></div><p>Actually, in most of the industrialized world that actually respects intellectual property rights. Attempting to ignore patent law would get Mozilla banned in pretty much all of Europe as well as the USA and Canada. I think that would be a deal-breaker for them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>H.264 is a free and open standard , just not in the US.Actually , in most of the industrialized world that actually respects intellectual property rights .
Attempting to ignore patent law would get Mozilla banned in pretty much all of Europe as well as the USA and Canada .
I think that would be a deal-breaker for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US.Actually, in most of the industrialized world that actually respects intellectual property rights.
Attempting to ignore patent law would get Mozilla banned in pretty much all of Europe as well as the USA and Canada.
I think that would be a deal-breaker for them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882914</id>
	<title>just wait and see...</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1264332180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you really think google will just ignore it when youtube's webhits nosedive by 36\% and their advertising partners leave en masse? <br>If 36\% of all internet users and especially the pros can't see your html 5 videos, then html 5 is done for.<br>
just wait for html 5's demise and ogg/theora in html 6...<br>
Mozilla is to powerful in the browsermarket for any website to not support them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really think google will just ignore it when youtube 's webhits nosedive by 36 \ % and their advertising partners leave en masse ?
If 36 \ % of all internet users and especially the pros ca n't see your html 5 videos , then html 5 is done for .
just wait for html 5 's demise and ogg/theora in html 6.. . Mozilla is to powerful in the browsermarket for any website to not support them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really think google will just ignore it when youtube's webhits nosedive by 36\% and their advertising partners leave en masse?
If 36\% of all internet users and especially the pros can't see your html 5 videos, then html 5 is done for.
just wait for html 5's demise and ogg/theora in html 6...
Mozilla is to powerful in the browsermarket for any website to not support them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884924</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1264345740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its used because its free (for now) and is using an illegal bait and switch technique to build a false standard and then own the world.</p><p>I bet the mpeg consortium probably paid flash and Apple to use its technology to make it standard then bribed the w3c, and now are going to charge everyone through the roof. Cable companies are doing this and now are $200 a month and go up 15\% a year. It will be a few thousand a month a decade from now. These same executives want to own the web and h.264 is their way to do it.</p><p>Having it part of html5 is pushing the effort to standardize on it as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its used because its free ( for now ) and is using an illegal bait and switch technique to build a false standard and then own the world.I bet the mpeg consortium probably paid flash and Apple to use its technology to make it standard then bribed the w3c , and now are going to charge everyone through the roof .
Cable companies are doing this and now are $ 200 a month and go up 15 \ % a year .
It will be a few thousand a month a decade from now .
These same executives want to own the web and h.264 is their way to do it.Having it part of html5 is pushing the effort to standardize on it as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its used because its free (for now) and is using an illegal bait and switch technique to build a false standard and then own the world.I bet the mpeg consortium probably paid flash and Apple to use its technology to make it standard then bribed the w3c, and now are going to charge everyone through the roof.
Cable companies are doing this and now are $200 a month and go up 15\% a year.
It will be a few thousand a month a decade from now.
These same executives want to own the web and h.264 is their way to do it.Having it part of html5 is pushing the effort to standardize on it as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30887714</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264416900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that makes sense, after all the big push for freedom on Linux lead to things like the dropping of CSS on DVDs and Ogg Vorbis taking over from MP3s as the dominant music file standard. Oh, wait...</p><p>Unfortunately, Firefox hasn't got enough market share to influence the dominant standard, so the pragmatic solution is to implement some form of optional h.264 support.  Going back to Linux, how many Linux users run with 100\% free software, I know I don't, I always install the extra mplayer codecs, libdvdcss and I'm currently using the proprietary ATI graphics driver for my desktop because the open source one just didn't work properly (when I last did an install) and I used the closed NVidia driver when I had NVidia graphics.</p><p>I'd love to be able to run 100\% Free Software, but I also want my computer to work properly and do what I want, so I have to compromise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that makes sense , after all the big push for freedom on Linux lead to things like the dropping of CSS on DVDs and Ogg Vorbis taking over from MP3s as the dominant music file standard .
Oh , wait...Unfortunately , Firefox has n't got enough market share to influence the dominant standard , so the pragmatic solution is to implement some form of optional h.264 support .
Going back to Linux , how many Linux users run with 100 \ % free software , I know I do n't , I always install the extra mplayer codecs , libdvdcss and I 'm currently using the proprietary ATI graphics driver for my desktop because the open source one just did n't work properly ( when I last did an install ) and I used the closed NVidia driver when I had NVidia graphics.I 'd love to be able to run 100 \ % Free Software , but I also want my computer to work properly and do what I want , so I have to compromise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that makes sense, after all the big push for freedom on Linux lead to things like the dropping of CSS on DVDs and Ogg Vorbis taking over from MP3s as the dominant music file standard.
Oh, wait...Unfortunately, Firefox hasn't got enough market share to influence the dominant standard, so the pragmatic solution is to implement some form of optional h.264 support.
Going back to Linux, how many Linux users run with 100\% free software, I know I don't, I always install the extra mplayer codecs, libdvdcss and I'm currently using the proprietary ATI graphics driver for my desktop because the open source one just didn't work properly (when I last did an install) and I used the closed NVidia driver when I had NVidia graphics.I'd love to be able to run 100\% Free Software, but I also want my computer to work properly and do what I want, so I have to compromise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30888590</id>
	<title>Re:How to silently kill firefox</title>
	<author>Acaeris</author>
	<datestamp>1264427040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>YouTube was stuck in the H.264 situation before Google took control of it. Google are aiming to support both Ogg and H.264 in Chrome as far as I know but concentrated on H.264 because of all the content already in that format on YouTube. In essence, the decision for Chrome and YouTube to support H.264 was made by Adobe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>YouTube was stuck in the H.264 situation before Google took control of it .
Google are aiming to support both Ogg and H.264 in Chrome as far as I know but concentrated on H.264 because of all the content already in that format on YouTube .
In essence , the decision for Chrome and YouTube to support H.264 was made by Adobe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YouTube was stuck in the H.264 situation before Google took control of it.
Google are aiming to support both Ogg and H.264 in Chrome as far as I know but concentrated on H.264 because of all the content already in that format on YouTube.
In essence, the decision for Chrome and YouTube to support H.264 was made by Adobe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878874</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264353120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All of the bitching about the patent/royalty situation ignores the following facts:</p><ul> <li>H.264 is hardware accelerated on nearly every platform, desktop and mobile - Ogg is not.</li></ul> </div><p>This is a "chicken Vs egg" problem.  There are hardware decoders for Theora out there and the only thing that stops you from getting hardware support for a format is the OEM's decision to add it.  Nothing more, nothing less.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Ogg produces inferior video at the same bitrate as H.264, or larger video for the same quality.</p></div><p>Sorry, back here in reality <a href="http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html" title="xiph.org">Theora's quality is at least on par with H.264 with the same size</a> [xiph.org]. But thanks for your attempt at FUD, though.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>YouTube, DailyMotion, and Vimeo have spoken in favor of H.264. Watch the dominoes topple.</p></div><p>How exactly do "dominoes topple" if not only they can easily support Theora but also it is a very easy way to avoid licensing costs?  Support for H.264 is not free, you know? Didn't you even read the part in the summary that reads "the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010."?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There are two alternatives here - Flash-based video and H.264. Don't kid yourself that Ogg is a third, because it's not going to happen. Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done. Otherwise, watch Chrome <b>really</b> destroy Firefox.</p></div><p>Just because you try to repeat "Theora isn't an option" as a mantra of sorts it doesn't mean that it's anything remotely close to true.  There is a whole world out there that happens to enjoy watching videos online and no one in their right mind wishes to start paying money to keep doing that, neither the video providers nor the audience.  So please pick up your poorly conceived FUD and go waste it elsewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the bitching about the patent/royalty situation ignores the following facts : H.264 is hardware accelerated on nearly every platform , desktop and mobile - Ogg is not .
This is a " chicken Vs egg " problem .
There are hardware decoders for Theora out there and the only thing that stops you from getting hardware support for a format is the OEM 's decision to add it .
Nothing more , nothing less.Ogg produces inferior video at the same bitrate as H.264 , or larger video for the same quality.Sorry , back here in reality Theora 's quality is at least on par with H.264 with the same size [ xiph.org ] .
But thanks for your attempt at FUD , though.YouTube , DailyMotion , and Vimeo have spoken in favor of H.264 .
Watch the dominoes topple.How exactly do " dominoes topple " if not only they can easily support Theora but also it is a very easy way to avoid licensing costs ?
Support for H.264 is not free , you know ?
Did n't you even read the part in the summary that reads " the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010 .
" ? There are two alternatives here - Flash-based video and H.264 .
Do n't kid yourself that Ogg is a third , because it 's not going to happen .
Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done .
Otherwise , watch Chrome really destroy Firefox.Just because you try to repeat " Theora is n't an option " as a mantra of sorts it does n't mean that it 's anything remotely close to true .
There is a whole world out there that happens to enjoy watching videos online and no one in their right mind wishes to start paying money to keep doing that , neither the video providers nor the audience .
So please pick up your poorly conceived FUD and go waste it elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the bitching about the patent/royalty situation ignores the following facts: H.264 is hardware accelerated on nearly every platform, desktop and mobile - Ogg is not.
This is a "chicken Vs egg" problem.
There are hardware decoders for Theora out there and the only thing that stops you from getting hardware support for a format is the OEM's decision to add it.
Nothing more, nothing less.Ogg produces inferior video at the same bitrate as H.264, or larger video for the same quality.Sorry, back here in reality Theora's quality is at least on par with H.264 with the same size [xiph.org].
But thanks for your attempt at FUD, though.YouTube, DailyMotion, and Vimeo have spoken in favor of H.264.
Watch the dominoes topple.How exactly do "dominoes topple" if not only they can easily support Theora but also it is a very easy way to avoid licensing costs?
Support for H.264 is not free, you know?
Didn't you even read the part in the summary that reads "the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010.
"?There are two alternatives here - Flash-based video and H.264.
Don't kid yourself that Ogg is a third, because it's not going to happen.
Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done.
Otherwise, watch Chrome really destroy Firefox.Just because you try to repeat "Theora isn't an option" as a mantra of sorts it doesn't mean that it's anything remotely close to true.
There is a whole world out there that happens to enjoy watching videos online and no one in their right mind wishes to start paying money to keep doing that, neither the video providers nor the audience.
So please pick up your poorly conceived FUD and go waste it elsewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883024</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1264332960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The United States market is large enough that "it doesn't just work in the United States" means "it doesn't just work" because the install disc would require onboard GPS so that it won't install on a machine on U.S. soil.</p></div><p>Actually, the Canonical way of dealing with that is to pass the buck on to the user (i.e. pop up a dialog box saying "don't install this software if you're not sure it's legal to do so.  We won't help you figure out what is(n't) legal in your country.").</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The United States market is large enough that " it does n't just work in the United States " means " it does n't just work " because the install disc would require onboard GPS so that it wo n't install on a machine on U.S. soil.Actually , the Canonical way of dealing with that is to pass the buck on to the user ( i.e .
pop up a dialog box saying " do n't install this software if you 're not sure it 's legal to do so .
We wo n't help you figure out what is ( n't ) legal in your country .
" ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The United States market is large enough that "it doesn't just work in the United States" means "it doesn't just work" because the install disc would require onboard GPS so that it won't install on a machine on U.S. soil.Actually, the Canonical way of dealing with that is to pass the buck on to the user (i.e.
pop up a dialog box saying "don't install this software if you're not sure it's legal to do so.
We won't help you figure out what is(n't) legal in your country.
").
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878738</id>
	<title>Re:FFmpeg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264352220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That may be correct in a technical point of view and a very simple solution to this problem.  Unfortunately, the world is a bit more complex than that, thanks for the mess of convoluted rules which each jurisdiction imposes on it's citizens.  In this case, if you take a look at <a href="http://ffmpeg.org/legal.html" title="ffmpeg.org">ffmpeg's patents min-FAQ"</a> [ffmpeg.org] you will notice the following disclaimers:</p><blockquote><div><p> <i><br>Q: Does FFmpeg use patented algorithms?<br>A: We do not know, we are not lawyers so we are not qualified to answer this. Also we have never read patents to implement any part of FFmpeg, so even if we were qualified we could not answer it as we do not know what is patented. Furthermore the sheer number of software patents makes it impossible to read them all so no one (lawyer or not) could answer such a question with a definite no, those who do lie. What we do know is that various standards FFmpeg supports contain vague hints that any conforming implementation might be subject to some patent rights in some jurisdictions, examples for such statements are:<br>For H.264:</i></p><p><i>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ITU draws attention to the possibility that the practice or implementation of this Recommendation may involve the use of a claimed Intellectual Property Right. ITU takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of claimed Intellectual Property Rights, whether asserted by ITU members or others outside of the Recommendation development process.</i></p><p><i>Q: Is it safe to use such patented algorithms?<br>A: Patent laws vary wildly between jurisdictions, and in many countries patents on algorithms are not recognized. Plus the use of patents to prevent the usage of a format or codec on a specific operating system or together with specific other software might violate antitrust laws. <b>So whether you are safe or not depends on where you live and how judges interpret the law in your jurisdiction. </b><br></i></p></div> </blockquote><p>So, although ffmpeg supports H.264 and other patent-encumbered formats, it does so in spite of the patents that affect the implementations.  As a consequence, they make it clear that if you rely on ffmpeg then you are at your own risk.  And needlessly putting yourself at risk is never a good thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That may be correct in a technical point of view and a very simple solution to this problem .
Unfortunately , the world is a bit more complex than that , thanks for the mess of convoluted rules which each jurisdiction imposes on it 's citizens .
In this case , if you take a look at ffmpeg 's patents min-FAQ " [ ffmpeg.org ] you will notice the following disclaimers : Q : Does FFmpeg use patented algorithms ? A : We do not know , we are not lawyers so we are not qualified to answer this .
Also we have never read patents to implement any part of FFmpeg , so even if we were qualified we could not answer it as we do not know what is patented .
Furthermore the sheer number of software patents makes it impossible to read them all so no one ( lawyer or not ) could answer such a question with a definite no , those who do lie .
What we do know is that various standards FFmpeg supports contain vague hints that any conforming implementation might be subject to some patent rights in some jurisdictions , examples for such statements are : For H.264 :         ITU draws attention to the possibility that the practice or implementation of this Recommendation may involve the use of a claimed Intellectual Property Right .
ITU takes no position concerning the evidence , validity or applicability of claimed Intellectual Property Rights , whether asserted by ITU members or others outside of the Recommendation development process.Q : Is it safe to use such patented algorithms ? A : Patent laws vary wildly between jurisdictions , and in many countries patents on algorithms are not recognized .
Plus the use of patents to prevent the usage of a format or codec on a specific operating system or together with specific other software might violate antitrust laws .
So whether you are safe or not depends on where you live and how judges interpret the law in your jurisdiction .
So , although ffmpeg supports H.264 and other patent-encumbered formats , it does so in spite of the patents that affect the implementations .
As a consequence , they make it clear that if you rely on ffmpeg then you are at your own risk .
And needlessly putting yourself at risk is never a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may be correct in a technical point of view and a very simple solution to this problem.
Unfortunately, the world is a bit more complex than that, thanks for the mess of convoluted rules which each jurisdiction imposes on it's citizens.
In this case, if you take a look at ffmpeg's patents min-FAQ" [ffmpeg.org] you will notice the following disclaimers: Q: Does FFmpeg use patented algorithms?A: We do not know, we are not lawyers so we are not qualified to answer this.
Also we have never read patents to implement any part of FFmpeg, so even if we were qualified we could not answer it as we do not know what is patented.
Furthermore the sheer number of software patents makes it impossible to read them all so no one (lawyer or not) could answer such a question with a definite no, those who do lie.
What we do know is that various standards FFmpeg supports contain vague hints that any conforming implementation might be subject to some patent rights in some jurisdictions, examples for such statements are:For H.264:
        ITU draws attention to the possibility that the practice or implementation of this Recommendation may involve the use of a claimed Intellectual Property Right.
ITU takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of claimed Intellectual Property Rights, whether asserted by ITU members or others outside of the Recommendation development process.Q: Is it safe to use such patented algorithms?A: Patent laws vary wildly between jurisdictions, and in many countries patents on algorithms are not recognized.
Plus the use of patents to prevent the usage of a format or codec on a specific operating system or together with specific other software might violate antitrust laws.
So whether you are safe or not depends on where you live and how judges interpret the law in your jurisdiction.
So, although ffmpeg supports H.264 and other patent-encumbered formats, it does so in spite of the patents that affect the implementations.
As a consequence, they make it clear that if you rely on ffmpeg then you are at your own risk.
And needlessly putting yourself at risk is never a good thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879970</id>
	<title>Flash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget flash supports h.264 in addition to On2's VP#.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget flash supports h.264 in addition to On2 's VP # .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget flash supports h.264 in addition to On2's VP#.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30887166</id>
	<title>Video tag was botched</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1264453080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fact is, if the web site has the ability to choose the CODEC, then they should have a means of providing the CODEC. An architecture via DOM, EcmaScript, WebGL and an audio object should have been designed so that CODECs could be distributed to the web browser as byte code that can be compiled optimized for the platform.<br><br>Sure, initially it would be slow, but now that pretty much all EcmaScript implementations compile to native, it would make sense to push the limits and force the ability to produce vectorized code as well. There's simply no reason that EcmaScript couldn't be used for implementing CODECs. WebGL provides video textures which can be used for pushing the media to. Additionally, GLSL might be able to be used for GPU accelerated Video CODECs.<br><br>As far as I can see, the only thing missing is a method of outputting audio data from EcmaScript as a stream.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact is , if the web site has the ability to choose the CODEC , then they should have a means of providing the CODEC .
An architecture via DOM , EcmaScript , WebGL and an audio object should have been designed so that CODECs could be distributed to the web browser as byte code that can be compiled optimized for the platform.Sure , initially it would be slow , but now that pretty much all EcmaScript implementations compile to native , it would make sense to push the limits and force the ability to produce vectorized code as well .
There 's simply no reason that EcmaScript could n't be used for implementing CODECs .
WebGL provides video textures which can be used for pushing the media to .
Additionally , GLSL might be able to be used for GPU accelerated Video CODECs.As far as I can see , the only thing missing is a method of outputting audio data from EcmaScript as a stream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact is, if the web site has the ability to choose the CODEC, then they should have a means of providing the CODEC.
An architecture via DOM, EcmaScript, WebGL and an audio object should have been designed so that CODECs could be distributed to the web browser as byte code that can be compiled optimized for the platform.Sure, initially it would be slow, but now that pretty much all EcmaScript implementations compile to native, it would make sense to push the limits and force the ability to produce vectorized code as well.
There's simply no reason that EcmaScript couldn't be used for implementing CODECs.
WebGL provides video textures which can be used for pushing the media to.
Additionally, GLSL might be able to be used for GPU accelerated Video CODECs.As far as I can see, the only thing missing is a method of outputting audio data from EcmaScript as a stream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884330</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264341720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be great if it were true.  In fact there's a single FPGA implementation of theora decodind in hardware, and nothing in the world of ASICs.  There's a whole pile of verification pain after the design work in any hardware decoder, and implementation costs die area, which costs $$ for every unit sold.</p><p>It would really better serve open source codec advocacy if you were better informed and more honest about the situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be great if it were true .
In fact there 's a single FPGA implementation of theora decodind in hardware , and nothing in the world of ASICs .
There 's a whole pile of verification pain after the design work in any hardware decoder , and implementation costs die area , which costs $ $ for every unit sold.It would really better serve open source codec advocacy if you were better informed and more honest about the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be great if it were true.
In fact there's a single FPGA implementation of theora decodind in hardware, and nothing in the world of ASICs.
There's a whole pile of verification pain after the design work in any hardware decoder, and implementation costs die area, which costs $$ for every unit sold.It would really better serve open source codec advocacy if you were better informed and more honest about the situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878660</id>
	<title>More patent abuse</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1264351860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Indeed, even distributing H.264 content over the internet or broadcasting it over the airwaves requires the consent of the MPEG-LA</p></div></blockquote><p>Now that's ridiculous.  Unlike many other technology subject to patents, it's pretty clear that H.264 is useful, novel, and non-obvious.  But allowing claims that cover not just the encoder and decoder, but the actual bitstreams they produce, is completely abusive of the patent system.   A fancy new saw to cut complex curves in wood might be patentable, but allowing that patent to cover the product would be silly on the face of it.  This is no different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , even distributing H.264 content over the internet or broadcasting it over the airwaves requires the consent of the MPEG-LANow that 's ridiculous .
Unlike many other technology subject to patents , it 's pretty clear that H.264 is useful , novel , and non-obvious .
But allowing claims that cover not just the encoder and decoder , but the actual bitstreams they produce , is completely abusive of the patent system .
A fancy new saw to cut complex curves in wood might be patentable , but allowing that patent to cover the product would be silly on the face of it .
This is no different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, even distributing H.264 content over the internet or broadcasting it over the airwaves requires the consent of the MPEG-LANow that's ridiculous.
Unlike many other technology subject to patents, it's pretty clear that H.264 is useful, novel, and non-obvious.
But allowing claims that cover not just the encoder and decoder, but the actual bitstreams they produce, is completely abusive of the patent system.
A fancy new saw to cut complex curves in wood might be patentable, but allowing that patent to cover the product would be silly on the face of it.
This is no different.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</id>
	<title>Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264352280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB?  PCI?  AGP?  Those are all standards.</p><p>People license stuff all the time, even standards.  Mozilla needs to get over themselves and provide a way to play standard H.264 videos.</p><blockquote><div><p>lots of people just won't be interested</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm assuming you are projecting the fact that most people are purely interested in open source.</p><p>You are wrong.  Most people want things to just work.  Firefox got where they are today because what they produced *worked*.  The fact Firefox is open source, free source, or RMS Free as in Freedom(tm) is secondary.</p><p>The day Firefox stops *just working* is the day its lunch will be taken by competitors like Chrome, Opera or Safari.  If IE9 plays H.264, Chrome plays H2.64, Opera plays H.264, and Safari plays H.264 but Firefox does not play H.264, guess which one doesn't "just work"?</p><p>By the way, has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing?  Have they, you know, said "dudes, we have 33\% of the browser market and our business model isn't structured for this sort of thing".  My hunch is they could probably get some kind of deal hammered out.  The Mozilla foundation does have some political capital you know--this is a good use of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB ?
PCI ? AGP ?
Those are all standards.People license stuff all the time , even standards .
Mozilla needs to get over themselves and provide a way to play standard H.264 videos.lots of people just wo n't be interestedI 'm assuming you are projecting the fact that most people are purely interested in open source.You are wrong .
Most people want things to just work .
Firefox got where they are today because what they produced * worked * .
The fact Firefox is open source , free source , or RMS Free as in Freedom ( tm ) is secondary.The day Firefox stops * just working * is the day its lunch will be taken by competitors like Chrome , Opera or Safari .
If IE9 plays H.264 , Chrome plays H2.64 , Opera plays H.264 , and Safari plays H.264 but Firefox does not play H.264 , guess which one does n't " just work " ? By the way , has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing ?
Have they , you know , said " dudes , we have 33 \ % of the browser market and our business model is n't structured for this sort of thing " .
My hunch is they could probably get some kind of deal hammered out .
The Mozilla foundation does have some political capital you know--this is a good use of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB?
PCI?  AGP?
Those are all standards.People license stuff all the time, even standards.
Mozilla needs to get over themselves and provide a way to play standard H.264 videos.lots of people just won't be interestedI'm assuming you are projecting the fact that most people are purely interested in open source.You are wrong.
Most people want things to just work.
Firefox got where they are today because what they produced *worked*.
The fact Firefox is open source, free source, or RMS Free as in Freedom(tm) is secondary.The day Firefox stops *just working* is the day its lunch will be taken by competitors like Chrome, Opera or Safari.
If IE9 plays H.264, Chrome plays H2.64, Opera plays H.264, and Safari plays H.264 but Firefox does not play H.264, guess which one doesn't "just work"?By the way, has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing?
Have they, you know, said "dudes, we have 33\% of the browser market and our business model isn't structured for this sort of thing".
My hunch is they could probably get some kind of deal hammered out.
The Mozilla foundation does have some political capital you know--this is a good use of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881198</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>CheshireFerk-o</author>
	<datestamp>1264365540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact I still use the following...</p><p>deb <a href="ftp://debian.lcs.mit.edu/debian/" title="mit.edu" rel="nofollow">ftp://debian.lcs.mit.edu/debian/</a> [mit.edu] testing non-free</p><p>I've been using debian for over 9 years now, and running unstable/testing, I've only installed the OS twice. Once at birth and once on the switch to raid. Not once have I had a problem doing pretty much whatever I want it to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact I still use the following...deb ftp : //debian.lcs.mit.edu/debian/ [ mit.edu ] testing non-freeI 've been using debian for over 9 years now , and running unstable/testing , I 've only installed the OS twice .
Once at birth and once on the switch to raid .
Not once have I had a problem doing pretty much whatever I want it to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact I still use the following...deb ftp://debian.lcs.mit.edu/debian/ [mit.edu] testing non-freeI've been using debian for over 9 years now, and running unstable/testing, I've only installed the OS twice.
Once at birth and once on the switch to raid.
Not once have I had a problem doing pretty much whatever I want it to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30893872</id>
	<title>H.264 won.... deal with it.</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1264449360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>H.264 had already won. It wins because it does the job the best. Yeah, it's a commercial thing, and that IS bad for the web in ways that's not really much of a big deal for other things. Similarly, delivering the best compression per bit is critical for video delivery over most other media, but particularly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, the places it's already used. Every major still or video camera maker uses H.264. Every Blu-Ray member, satellite companies like Echostar and DirecTV. Every major PMP maker.</p><p>The simple fact is that H.264 is to the early 21rst century was MPEG-2 was to the 1990s... THE video standard format.</p><p>The correct way to manage this the way the video players (DVD, Blu-Ray) have done, but that still sucks a little if you're Mozilla. Basically, every video format has both mandatory and optional formats it must decode. This makes this a bit harder on the player producers, but much easier on the content delivery folks.... the only have to chose one of the above. So if I make a Blu-Ray (I do, this isn't just hypothetical), I have the choice of H.264/AVC, VC-1 (WMV9), or MPEG-2 as the video format, and half a dozen audio formats, including a few flavors of AC-3 and plain old uncompressed.</p><p>So the right consumer solution here would have been to demand that  support H.264 and Ogg Theora as mandatory formats. Toss in a few optional formats if you like... they might not be popular, but you never know (MPEG Layer 2 audio was an optional format for Region 1 DVD, yet nearly every players supports it).</p><p>To support open source, make the H.264 piece into a closed source, pay-for plug-in. This is how a number of companies (Nero, Archos, etc) have dealt with the extra cost of supporting AVC, at least at some time in the past. It might have a bad taste without those Fundamentalists among us who want to refuse even the possibility of closed source or proprietary formats getting into their faces, but for those who just want a practical engineering solution, this works. None of the Theora backers were EVER going to get the H.264 proponents to back down and embrace Theora as the only HTML5 video format. Look at the list... they're all the guys with the money, and most of them have vast investments already in H.264 content. Taking them on the way this was done, it was a guaranteed fail.</p><p>But of course, this is the computer industry, where everyone has to fight over their one preferred solution, rather than take the "what's best for the most people" approach, which is really what the CE type solution comes down to. And of course, the CE industry NEVER has such format wars [ducking....]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>H.264 had already won .
It wins because it does the job the best .
Yeah , it 's a commercial thing , and that IS bad for the web in ways that 's not really much of a big deal for other things .
Similarly , delivering the best compression per bit is critical for video delivery over most other media , but particularly ... well , the places it 's already used .
Every major still or video camera maker uses H.264 .
Every Blu-Ray member , satellite companies like Echostar and DirecTV .
Every major PMP maker.The simple fact is that H.264 is to the early 21rst century was MPEG-2 was to the 1990s... THE video standard format.The correct way to manage this the way the video players ( DVD , Blu-Ray ) have done , but that still sucks a little if you 're Mozilla .
Basically , every video format has both mandatory and optional formats it must decode .
This makes this a bit harder on the player producers , but much easier on the content delivery folks.... the only have to chose one of the above .
So if I make a Blu-Ray ( I do , this is n't just hypothetical ) , I have the choice of H.264/AVC , VC-1 ( WMV9 ) , or MPEG-2 as the video format , and half a dozen audio formats , including a few flavors of AC-3 and plain old uncompressed.So the right consumer solution here would have been to demand that support H.264 and Ogg Theora as mandatory formats .
Toss in a few optional formats if you like... they might not be popular , but you never know ( MPEG Layer 2 audio was an optional format for Region 1 DVD , yet nearly every players supports it ) .To support open source , make the H.264 piece into a closed source , pay-for plug-in .
This is how a number of companies ( Nero , Archos , etc ) have dealt with the extra cost of supporting AVC , at least at some time in the past .
It might have a bad taste without those Fundamentalists among us who want to refuse even the possibility of closed source or proprietary formats getting into their faces , but for those who just want a practical engineering solution , this works .
None of the Theora backers were EVER going to get the H.264 proponents to back down and embrace Theora as the only HTML5 video format .
Look at the list... they 're all the guys with the money , and most of them have vast investments already in H.264 content .
Taking them on the way this was done , it was a guaranteed fail.But of course , this is the computer industry , where everyone has to fight over their one preferred solution , rather than take the " what 's best for the most people " approach , which is really what the CE type solution comes down to .
And of course , the CE industry NEVER has such format wars [ ducking.... ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H.264 had already won.
It wins because it does the job the best.
Yeah, it's a commercial thing, and that IS bad for the web in ways that's not really much of a big deal for other things.
Similarly, delivering the best compression per bit is critical for video delivery over most other media, but particularly ... well, the places it's already used.
Every major still or video camera maker uses H.264.
Every Blu-Ray member, satellite companies like Echostar and DirecTV.
Every major PMP maker.The simple fact is that H.264 is to the early 21rst century was MPEG-2 was to the 1990s... THE video standard format.The correct way to manage this the way the video players (DVD, Blu-Ray) have done, but that still sucks a little if you're Mozilla.
Basically, every video format has both mandatory and optional formats it must decode.
This makes this a bit harder on the player producers, but much easier on the content delivery folks.... the only have to chose one of the above.
So if I make a Blu-Ray (I do, this isn't just hypothetical), I have the choice of H.264/AVC, VC-1 (WMV9), or MPEG-2 as the video format, and half a dozen audio formats, including a few flavors of AC-3 and plain old uncompressed.So the right consumer solution here would have been to demand that  support H.264 and Ogg Theora as mandatory formats.
Toss in a few optional formats if you like... they might not be popular, but you never know (MPEG Layer 2 audio was an optional format for Region 1 DVD, yet nearly every players supports it).To support open source, make the H.264 piece into a closed source, pay-for plug-in.
This is how a number of companies (Nero, Archos, etc) have dealt with the extra cost of supporting AVC, at least at some time in the past.
It might have a bad taste without those Fundamentalists among us who want to refuse even the possibility of closed source or proprietary formats getting into their faces, but for those who just want a practical engineering solution, this works.
None of the Theora backers were EVER going to get the H.264 proponents to back down and embrace Theora as the only HTML5 video format.
Look at the list... they're all the guys with the money, and most of them have vast investments already in H.264 content.
Taking them on the way this was done, it was a guaranteed fail.But of course, this is the computer industry, where everyone has to fight over their one preferred solution, rather than take the "what's best for the most people" approach, which is really what the CE type solution comes down to.
And of course, the CE industry NEVER has such format wars [ducking....]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880166</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Goalie\_Ca</author>
	<datestamp>1264360440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox should be able to rely on the windows/mac implementation of H.264 and avoid all of these headaches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox should be able to rely on the windows/mac implementation of H.264 and avoid all of these headaches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox should be able to rely on the windows/mac implementation of H.264 and avoid all of these headaches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878972</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264353660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US.</p><p>Or France or Germany, last I checked (as in, there are H.264 patents that have been granted by those countries; these are not \_software\_ patents but patents on the design of the codec).  I haven't looked into detail for other countries, but I think you're making some unjustified assumptions here (like "h.264 patents are software patents").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; H.264 is a free and open standard , just not in the US.Or France or Germany , last I checked ( as in , there are H.264 patents that have been granted by those countries ; these are not \ _software \ _ patents but patents on the design of the codec ) .
I have n't looked into detail for other countries , but I think you 're making some unjustified assumptions here ( like " h.264 patents are software patents " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US.Or France or Germany, last I checked (as in, there are H.264 patents that have been granted by those countries; these are not \_software\_ patents but patents on the design of the codec).
I haven't looked into detail for other countries, but I think you're making some unjustified assumptions here (like "h.264 patents are software patents").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879356</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1264355880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I by contrast can come up with three (at least) legitimate, reasonable, intelligent arguments against Ogg Theora: [...] It is patented</p></div><p>What is the number of a U.S. patent covering Theora that hasn't been irrevocably licensed to the public for all uses by On2? The leaders of the Xiph.Org Foundation want to know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I by contrast can come up with three ( at least ) legitimate , reasonable , intelligent arguments against Ogg Theora : [ ... ] It is patentedWhat is the number of a U.S. patent covering Theora that has n't been irrevocably licensed to the public for all uses by On2 ?
The leaders of the Xiph.Org Foundation want to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I by contrast can come up with three (at least) legitimate, reasonable, intelligent arguments against Ogg Theora: [...] It is patentedWhat is the number of a U.S. patent covering Theora that hasn't been irrevocably licensed to the public for all uses by On2?
The leaders of the Xiph.Org Foundation want to know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879936</id>
	<title>Use a different h264</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not like the MPEG-LA has the only working implementation in the world. If you don't want their product then use one of the lgpl versions and dont pay them. Stop fussing over nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like the MPEG-LA has the only working implementation in the world .
If you do n't want their product then use one of the lgpl versions and dont pay them .
Stop fussing over nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like the MPEG-LA has the only working implementation in the world.
If you don't want their product then use one of the lgpl versions and dont pay them.
Stop fussing over nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882496</id>
	<title>Out of the mirage and into the other mirage</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1264329600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>no one is under the illusion that ogg is a suitable replacement for h.264 in all cases. The hope is that a better codec than either will appear with more suitable licensing terms</i></p><p>And the second thing you mention is not equally delusional as the first why exactly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no one is under the illusion that ogg is a suitable replacement for h.264 in all cases .
The hope is that a better codec than either will appear with more suitable licensing termsAnd the second thing you mention is not equally delusional as the first why exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no one is under the illusion that ogg is a suitable replacement for h.264 in all cases.
The hope is that a better codec than either will appear with more suitable licensing termsAnd the second thing you mention is not equally delusional as the first why exactly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881886</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264326120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We ARE the center of world technology. @$$.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We ARE the center of world technology .
@ $ $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We ARE the center of world technology.
@$$.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430</id>
	<title>Just open up the video architecture</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1264350420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mozilla doesn't have to implement anything, just make the video plugin architecture extensible. Otherwise sites will just push other browsers which do implement H264, or will use plugins like Silverlight / Flash to render the content anyway in Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla does n't have to implement anything , just make the video plugin architecture extensible .
Otherwise sites will just push other browsers which do implement H264 , or will use plugins like Silverlight / Flash to render the content anyway in Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla doesn't have to implement anything, just make the video plugin architecture extensible.
Otherwise sites will just push other browsers which do implement H264, or will use plugins like Silverlight / Flash to render the content anyway in Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882798</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1264331340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was only $2000, they'd already have licensed it. But people are throwing around quotes of $5,000,000 per year, which is a HUGE amount of Mozilla and Opera's revenue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was only $ 2000 , they 'd already have licensed it .
But people are throwing around quotes of $ 5,000,000 per year , which is a HUGE amount of Mozilla and Opera 's revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was only $2000, they'd already have licensed it.
But people are throwing around quotes of $5,000,000 per year, which is a HUGE amount of Mozilla and Opera's revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884780</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264344900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think anyone's ignoring those facts. In particular, no one is under the illusion that ogg is a suitable replacement for h.264 in all cases.</p></div><p>GP's point was not about technological merits of codecs, so much as it was about reality. As it is, the best you can hope for now is HTML5+H.264 for those user agents that can handle it, and HTML4+Flash for everyone else. The latter category will definitely include IE for the time being, but it now looks like it'll also include Firefox as well.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The hope is that a better codec than either will appear with more suitable licensing terms; in the meantime a premature standardization on h.264 would hurt the chances of that codec being adopted when it appears, no?</p></div><p>Companies that are pushing for HTML5 in general (and VIDEO element in particular) - Google, Apple and friends - want to solve a particular problem, and they want to solve it now. As far as they're concerned, H.264 <em>does</em> have licensing terms which are very much suitable <em>for them</em>.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Wikipedia, say, has no plans to put its video in H.264 (so Safari, say, can't very well view it).</p></div><p>Wikipedia is not a big player here, because the amount of video content on it is miniscule. In part this is precisely because they stick to Theora, which few people can be bothered to produce, especially knowing that even fewer actually have the means (or can be bothered to acquire them) to view it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anyone 's ignoring those facts .
In particular , no one is under the illusion that ogg is a suitable replacement for h.264 in all cases.GP 's point was not about technological merits of codecs , so much as it was about reality .
As it is , the best you can hope for now is HTML5 + H.264 for those user agents that can handle it , and HTML4 + Flash for everyone else .
The latter category will definitely include IE for the time being , but it now looks like it 'll also include Firefox as well.The hope is that a better codec than either will appear with more suitable licensing terms ; in the meantime a premature standardization on h.264 would hurt the chances of that codec being adopted when it appears , no ? Companies that are pushing for HTML5 in general ( and VIDEO element in particular ) - Google , Apple and friends - want to solve a particular problem , and they want to solve it now .
As far as they 're concerned , H.264 does have licensing terms which are very much suitable for them.On the other hand , you seem to be ignoring the fact that Wikipedia , say , has no plans to put its video in H.264 ( so Safari , say , ca n't very well view it ) .Wikipedia is not a big player here , because the amount of video content on it is miniscule .
In part this is precisely because they stick to Theora , which few people can be bothered to produce , especially knowing that even fewer actually have the means ( or can be bothered to acquire them ) to view it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anyone's ignoring those facts.
In particular, no one is under the illusion that ogg is a suitable replacement for h.264 in all cases.GP's point was not about technological merits of codecs, so much as it was about reality.
As it is, the best you can hope for now is HTML5+H.264 for those user agents that can handle it, and HTML4+Flash for everyone else.
The latter category will definitely include IE for the time being, but it now looks like it'll also include Firefox as well.The hope is that a better codec than either will appear with more suitable licensing terms; in the meantime a premature standardization on h.264 would hurt the chances of that codec being adopted when it appears, no?Companies that are pushing for HTML5 in general (and VIDEO element in particular) - Google, Apple and friends - want to solve a particular problem, and they want to solve it now.
As far as they're concerned, H.264 does have licensing terms which are very much suitable for them.On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Wikipedia, say, has no plans to put its video in H.264 (so Safari, say, can't very well view it).Wikipedia is not a big player here, because the amount of video content on it is miniscule.
In part this is precisely because they stick to Theora, which few people can be bothered to produce, especially knowing that even fewer actually have the means (or can be bothered to acquire them) to view it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30890404</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>atilla filiz</author>
	<datestamp>1264436460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is patented, and in exactly the same way as h264 will form a <b>troll</b> both on the internet</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is patented , and in exactly the same way as h264 will form a troll both on the internetFixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is patented, and in exactly the same way as h264 will form a troll both on the internetFixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880380</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264361460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually reading TFA would reveal that Windows Vista and earlier do not include the H.264 codec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually reading TFA would reveal that Windows Vista and earlier do not include the H.264 codec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually reading TFA would reveal that Windows Vista and earlier do not include the H.264 codec.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878928</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264353420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB?  PCI?  AGP?  Those are all standards.</p></div><p>Not in software, and hardware can't be free anyway, since even if every employee wishes to work for free the cost of manufacturing will always be quite large, as opposed to the relatively small cost of web hosting.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>People license stuff all the time, even standards.  Mozilla needs to get over themselves and provide a way to play standard H.264 videos.</p></div><p>There are two ways, they can start charging money or bankrupt themselves, can you see why this would be a bad idea?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The day Firefox stops *just working* is the day its lunch will be taken by competitors like Chrome, Opera or Safari.  If IE9 plays H.264, Chrome plays H2.64, Opera plays H.264, and Safari plays H.264 but Firefox does not play H.264, guess which one doesn't "just work"?</p><p>By the way, has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing?  Have they, you know, said "dudes, we have 33\% of the browser market and our business model isn't structured for this sort of thing".  My hunch is they could probably get some kind of deal hammered out.  The Mozilla foundation does have some political capital you know--this is a good use of it.</p></div><p>Yes, if they can't implement H.264 it will no longer "just work", we are aware of that and so are they, it's a problem that needs to be fixed, but that doesn'tmean there's a magical solution for it which has no downsides, some things (such as software patents) don't work that way.<br>I'm unaware if they've gone to the license-holders, the only comment I've seen from a Firefox developer (or at least it seems to be from one) says that they will not be allowed to implement this codec if Firefox is to remain free software, they probably could get a deal if they were willing to make it a proprietary program, but that's not something they're willing to do.<br>He also hints at getting around this by using the OS libraries to play videos/audio, which would probably be the best solution IMO, since even on Linux a "sudo apt-get install kubuntu-restricted-extras" or the equivalent would provide pretty much all codecs you need, but I haven't seen any solid plans for this and it may not be that easy looking at how crap most media plugins are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB ?
PCI ? AGP ?
Those are all standards.Not in software , and hardware ca n't be free anyway , since even if every employee wishes to work for free the cost of manufacturing will always be quite large , as opposed to the relatively small cost of web hosting.People license stuff all the time , even standards .
Mozilla needs to get over themselves and provide a way to play standard H.264 videos.There are two ways , they can start charging money or bankrupt themselves , can you see why this would be a bad idea ? The day Firefox stops * just working * is the day its lunch will be taken by competitors like Chrome , Opera or Safari .
If IE9 plays H.264 , Chrome plays H2.64 , Opera plays H.264 , and Safari plays H.264 but Firefox does not play H.264 , guess which one does n't " just work " ? By the way , has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing ?
Have they , you know , said " dudes , we have 33 \ % of the browser market and our business model is n't structured for this sort of thing " .
My hunch is they could probably get some kind of deal hammered out .
The Mozilla foundation does have some political capital you know--this is a good use of it.Yes , if they ca n't implement H.264 it will no longer " just work " , we are aware of that and so are they , it 's a problem that needs to be fixed , but that doesn'tmean there 's a magical solution for it which has no downsides , some things ( such as software patents ) do n't work that way.I 'm unaware if they 've gone to the license-holders , the only comment I 've seen from a Firefox developer ( or at least it seems to be from one ) says that they will not be allowed to implement this codec if Firefox is to remain free software , they probably could get a deal if they were willing to make it a proprietary program , but that 's not something they 're willing to do.He also hints at getting around this by using the OS libraries to play videos/audio , which would probably be the best solution IMO , since even on Linux a " sudo apt-get install kubuntu-restricted-extras " or the equivalent would provide pretty much all codecs you need , but I have n't seen any solid plans for this and it may not be that easy looking at how crap most media plugins are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB?
PCI?  AGP?
Those are all standards.Not in software, and hardware can't be free anyway, since even if every employee wishes to work for free the cost of manufacturing will always be quite large, as opposed to the relatively small cost of web hosting.People license stuff all the time, even standards.
Mozilla needs to get over themselves and provide a way to play standard H.264 videos.There are two ways, they can start charging money or bankrupt themselves, can you see why this would be a bad idea?The day Firefox stops *just working* is the day its lunch will be taken by competitors like Chrome, Opera or Safari.
If IE9 plays H.264, Chrome plays H2.64, Opera plays H.264, and Safari plays H.264 but Firefox does not play H.264, guess which one doesn't "just work"?By the way, has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing?
Have they, you know, said "dudes, we have 33\% of the browser market and our business model isn't structured for this sort of thing".
My hunch is they could probably get some kind of deal hammered out.
The Mozilla foundation does have some political capital you know--this is a good use of it.Yes, if they can't implement H.264 it will no longer "just work", we are aware of that and so are they, it's a problem that needs to be fixed, but that doesn'tmean there's a magical solution for it which has no downsides, some things (such as software patents) don't work that way.I'm unaware if they've gone to the license-holders, the only comment I've seen from a Firefox developer (or at least it seems to be from one) says that they will not be allowed to implement this codec if Firefox is to remain free software, they probably could get a deal if they were willing to make it a proprietary program, but that's not something they're willing to do.He also hints at getting around this by using the OS libraries to play videos/audio, which would probably be the best solution IMO, since even on Linux a "sudo apt-get install kubuntu-restricted-extras" or the equivalent would provide pretty much all codecs you need, but I haven't seen any solid plans for this and it may not be that easy looking at how crap most media plugins are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881324</id>
	<title>Re:We shouldn't wish to be forced to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264366200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I understand why those companies don't want a free codec to succeed: that would lead to more competition and less ways to profit from their position.</p></div></blockquote><p> I doubt that has anything to do with it. They want users to have the best user experience on their site that they can, and currently there is little competition there. Ogg theora and h264 are just not on the same playing field.</p><p>I can decode 1080p h264 with only 10\% cpu usage on a core2duo (with VDPAU). Can theora do that? Will theora ever be able to do that? I doubt it.</p><p>
&nbsp; Last I checked h264 offered better picture quality for the same bitrate too, which certainly is a factor.  Having to up the bitrate means higher system requirements for your users and more bandwidth costs, which is the bottom line on video sites.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand why those companies do n't want a free codec to succeed : that would lead to more competition and less ways to profit from their position .
I doubt that has anything to do with it .
They want users to have the best user experience on their site that they can , and currently there is little competition there .
Ogg theora and h264 are just not on the same playing field.I can decode 1080p h264 with only 10 \ % cpu usage on a core2duo ( with VDPAU ) .
Can theora do that ?
Will theora ever be able to do that ?
I doubt it .
  Last I checked h264 offered better picture quality for the same bitrate too , which certainly is a factor .
Having to up the bitrate means higher system requirements for your users and more bandwidth costs , which is the bottom line on video sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I understand why those companies don't want a free codec to succeed: that would lead to more competition and less ways to profit from their position.
I doubt that has anything to do with it.
They want users to have the best user experience on their site that they can, and currently there is little competition there.
Ogg theora and h264 are just not on the same playing field.I can decode 1080p h264 with only 10\% cpu usage on a core2duo (with VDPAU).
Can theora do that?
Will theora ever be able to do that?
I doubt it.
  Last I checked h264 offered better picture quality for the same bitrate too, which certainly is a factor.
Having to up the bitrate means higher system requirements for your users and more bandwidth costs, which is the bottom line on video sites.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883144</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>klapaucjusz</author>
	<datestamp>1264333920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash is H.264.</p></div><p>To be entirely exact, Flash is either H.264, On2 or Sorenson Spark.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash is H.264.To be entirely exact , Flash is either H.264 , On2 or Sorenson Spark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash is H.264.To be entirely exact, Flash is either H.264, On2 or Sorenson Spark.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878858</id>
	<title>A fab costs a lot, if you can afford one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264353060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fab costs a lot, if you can afford one you can afford a license.</p><p>And it's an invention: a real thing that has to get around those pesky real life things, unlike the maths that is a compression algorithm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fab costs a lot , if you can afford one you can afford a license.And it 's an invention : a real thing that has to get around those pesky real life things , unlike the maths that is a compression algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fab costs a lot, if you can afford one you can afford a license.And it's an invention: a real thing that has to get around those pesky real life things, unlike the maths that is a compression algorithm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879002</id>
	<title>Re:Just give up your principles and compromize</title>
	<author>Johnny Loves Linux</author>
	<datestamp>1264353840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>Mozilla doesn't have to implement anything, just make the video plugin architecture extensible.</b> </p><p>They can't do that as they explain in the blog entry a) that most windows users don't have an H264 codec and b) It's pissing on their principles (my words, not theirs). And I see their point. The Mozilla people want to be able to browse the internet with a completely free stack. That is <b>their</b> point: a completely free stack.</p><p> What your suggestion is offering is a technical solution to the problem which unfortunately conflicts with their principle and thus they can't go down the road. I see Mozilla people's point and I agree with them. It's reasonable, logical and consistent. But I also understand there are a lot of people who read slashdot who just don't seem to understand what the point of freedom is.</p><p>So, I'm going to propose the following thought experiment for people who just don't get why it's important not to throw away your principles for a quick and easy solution that violates your principles. So suppose you're in the following scenario: you get to recieve a pile of money in exchange  for a corporation to cut off your right leg (why? Who knows what their motivation is.)
</p><ol>
<li> Do you reject the proposal out of hand without even determining how much money is involved?</li>
<li> Do you bargain for how much money you'll take for the loss of your right leg?</li>
</ol><p>
What if it was only a few toes say of one of your siblings, or a living parent, or one of your children if you have any? Would you be willing to bargain away someone else's toes?

</p><p> Now, some of you might be willing to bargain but rationalize to yourself "Hey, I didn't sell out cheap, I got $XYZ dollars for my right leg! Or. hey my brother didn't need his little toe to live, I'll cut him in for 30\% of the money". I'm sorry to say that if you're someone who would do a thing like that, I don't understand you and I doubt that I ever will. From my perspective, you have no principles except possibly the pursuit of money which as a goal I just don't see much point. Pursuit of money as a goal is not a socially constructive purpose. If this is you then it's obvious why you don't grok Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. If you happen to be an American, you probably also don't grok the value of the Bill of Rights either right up until a cop splits your head open for resisting arrest while doing nothing.  Then all of a sudden you might appreciate your freedoms with a little more enthusiasm.
</p><p> As the blg points out that yes, H264 patents will run out on 2017, but that is not the end of patented video codecs, there will be an H265 that follows it and so on. If you value freedom then you can't piss away your freedom or others' freedom by compromising on freedom in the name of expediency. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla does n't have to implement anything , just make the video plugin architecture extensible .
They ca n't do that as they explain in the blog entry a ) that most windows users do n't have an H264 codec and b ) It 's pissing on their principles ( my words , not theirs ) .
And I see their point .
The Mozilla people want to be able to browse the internet with a completely free stack .
That is their point : a completely free stack .
What your suggestion is offering is a technical solution to the problem which unfortunately conflicts with their principle and thus they ca n't go down the road .
I see Mozilla people 's point and I agree with them .
It 's reasonable , logical and consistent .
But I also understand there are a lot of people who read slashdot who just do n't seem to understand what the point of freedom is.So , I 'm going to propose the following thought experiment for people who just do n't get why it 's important not to throw away your principles for a quick and easy solution that violates your principles .
So suppose you 're in the following scenario : you get to recieve a pile of money in exchange for a corporation to cut off your right leg ( why ?
Who knows what their motivation is .
) Do you reject the proposal out of hand without even determining how much money is involved ?
Do you bargain for how much money you 'll take for the loss of your right leg ?
What if it was only a few toes say of one of your siblings , or a living parent , or one of your children if you have any ?
Would you be willing to bargain away someone else 's toes ?
Now , some of you might be willing to bargain but rationalize to yourself " Hey , I did n't sell out cheap , I got $ XYZ dollars for my right leg !
Or. hey my brother did n't need his little toe to live , I 'll cut him in for 30 \ % of the money " .
I 'm sorry to say that if you 're someone who would do a thing like that , I do n't understand you and I doubt that I ever will .
From my perspective , you have no principles except possibly the pursuit of money which as a goal I just do n't see much point .
Pursuit of money as a goal is not a socially constructive purpose .
If this is you then it 's obvious why you do n't grok Stallman and the Free Software Foundation .
If you happen to be an American , you probably also do n't grok the value of the Bill of Rights either right up until a cop splits your head open for resisting arrest while doing nothing .
Then all of a sudden you might appreciate your freedoms with a little more enthusiasm .
As the blg points out that yes , H264 patents will run out on 2017 , but that is not the end of patented video codecs , there will be an H265 that follows it and so on .
If you value freedom then you ca n't piss away your freedom or others ' freedom by compromising on freedom in the name of expediency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Mozilla doesn't have to implement anything, just make the video plugin architecture extensible.
They can't do that as they explain in the blog entry a) that most windows users don't have an H264 codec and b) It's pissing on their principles (my words, not theirs).
And I see their point.
The Mozilla people want to be able to browse the internet with a completely free stack.
That is their point: a completely free stack.
What your suggestion is offering is a technical solution to the problem which unfortunately conflicts with their principle and thus they can't go down the road.
I see Mozilla people's point and I agree with them.
It's reasonable, logical and consistent.
But I also understand there are a lot of people who read slashdot who just don't seem to understand what the point of freedom is.So, I'm going to propose the following thought experiment for people who just don't get why it's important not to throw away your principles for a quick and easy solution that violates your principles.
So suppose you're in the following scenario: you get to recieve a pile of money in exchange  for a corporation to cut off your right leg (why?
Who knows what their motivation is.
)

 Do you reject the proposal out of hand without even determining how much money is involved?
Do you bargain for how much money you'll take for the loss of your right leg?
What if it was only a few toes say of one of your siblings, or a living parent, or one of your children if you have any?
Would you be willing to bargain away someone else's toes?
Now, some of you might be willing to bargain but rationalize to yourself "Hey, I didn't sell out cheap, I got $XYZ dollars for my right leg!
Or. hey my brother didn't need his little toe to live, I'll cut him in for 30\% of the money".
I'm sorry to say that if you're someone who would do a thing like that, I don't understand you and I doubt that I ever will.
From my perspective, you have no principles except possibly the pursuit of money which as a goal I just don't see much point.
Pursuit of money as a goal is not a socially constructive purpose.
If this is you then it's obvious why you don't grok Stallman and the Free Software Foundation.
If you happen to be an American, you probably also don't grok the value of the Bill of Rights either right up until a cop splits your head open for resisting arrest while doing nothing.
Then all of a sudden you might appreciate your freedoms with a little more enthusiasm.
As the blg points out that yes, H264 patents will run out on 2017, but that is not the end of patented video codecs, there will be an H265 that follows it and so on.
If you value freedom then you can't piss away your freedom or others' freedom by compromising on freedom in the name of expediency. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878754</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264352340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And push the license fees down to the users? Is that what you really want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And push the license fees down to the users ?
Is that what you really want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And push the license fees down to the users?
Is that what you really want?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882862</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing doesn't prevent open sourcing</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1264331820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At what price (for both decoding and encoding)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At what price ( for both decoding and encoding ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At what price (for both decoding and encoding)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885706</id>
	<title>hmmmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264351920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main point as i understand, is that MPEG-LA can start after 2010 to force users to pay for the content they view. Until now, the viewer are free of payments, but this can change. At least on US territories and any territory where software patents apply (i can think JP/US/Some countries @Europe). I don't think is a thing of "we buy the software" anymore, but the thing can become a "Pay per View", so you want to see some video encoded with H.264, then you (as user) pay MPEG-LA or their licensors let's say, US 0.99 per video... It will be be not the end of youtube or similars, but the end of free videos using H.264.  Of course there's a chance that MPEG-LA just say the viewer are excempt of payment, but... why allow this??</p><p>That's why an open standard should be supported... is not that it will replacing a commercial standard anyway... If you want to support a commercial standard, then pay for it.. a plugin??... well why not... if the os has included facilities, then you pay for this when you buy the OS (windows/osx). If you use linux, then you are out of luck or be illegal and live with it... (not much of a difference with a informatic pirate anyway, but laws changes from country to country anyway).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main point as i understand , is that MPEG-LA can start after 2010 to force users to pay for the content they view .
Until now , the viewer are free of payments , but this can change .
At least on US territories and any territory where software patents apply ( i can think JP/US/Some countries @ Europe ) .
I do n't think is a thing of " we buy the software " anymore , but the thing can become a " Pay per View " , so you want to see some video encoded with H.264 , then you ( as user ) pay MPEG-LA or their licensors let 's say , US 0.99 per video... It will be be not the end of youtube or similars , but the end of free videos using H.264 .
Of course there 's a chance that MPEG-LA just say the viewer are excempt of payment , but... why allow this ?
? That 's why an open standard should be supported... is not that it will replacing a commercial standard anyway... If you want to support a commercial standard , then pay for it.. a plugin ? ? .. .
well why not... if the os has included facilities , then you pay for this when you buy the OS ( windows/osx ) .
If you use linux , then you are out of luck or be illegal and live with it... ( not much of a difference with a informatic pirate anyway , but laws changes from country to country anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main point as i understand, is that MPEG-LA can start after 2010 to force users to pay for the content they view.
Until now, the viewer are free of payments, but this can change.
At least on US territories and any territory where software patents apply (i can think JP/US/Some countries @Europe).
I don't think is a thing of "we buy the software" anymore, but the thing can become a "Pay per View", so you want to see some video encoded with H.264, then you (as user) pay MPEG-LA or their licensors let's say, US 0.99 per video... It will be be not the end of youtube or similars, but the end of free videos using H.264.
Of course there's a chance that MPEG-LA just say the viewer are excempt of payment, but... why allow this?
?That's why an open standard should be supported... is not that it will replacing a commercial standard anyway... If you want to support a commercial standard, then pay for it.. a plugin??...
well why not... if the os has included facilities, then you pay for this when you buy the OS (windows/osx).
If you use linux, then you are out of luck or be illegal and live with it... (not much of a difference with a informatic pirate anyway, but laws changes from country to country anyway).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881136</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264365240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing, no matter how good it looks</p></div><p>Nonsense. Firefox can use any codec that is already installed on the user's system.</p></div><p>That doesn't solve the problem, just moves it around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing , no matter how good it looksNonsense .
Firefox can use any codec that is already installed on the user 's system.That does n't solve the problem , just moves it around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing, no matter how good it looksNonsense.
Firefox can use any codec that is already installed on the user's system.That doesn't solve the problem, just moves it around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879080</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1264354380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People license stuff all the time, even standards. Mozilla needs to get over themselves and provide a way to play standard H.264 videos.</p></div><p>Licensing something like h264 is very different. Its not just the fee (about 5Million pa for FF popularity) its the restrictions that the contract has. Like promising to enforce DRM or not permitting redistribution. These licenses are simply not compatible with GPL 2 or 3. Since I am not free to redistribute FireFox without getting a license from MPEG-LA.
<br> <br>
And proving a H.264 *content* will require licenses after 2010. Have fun with that</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People license stuff all the time , even standards .
Mozilla needs to get over themselves and provide a way to play standard H.264 videos.Licensing something like h264 is very different .
Its not just the fee ( about 5Million pa for FF popularity ) its the restrictions that the contract has .
Like promising to enforce DRM or not permitting redistribution .
These licenses are simply not compatible with GPL 2 or 3 .
Since I am not free to redistribute FireFox without getting a license from MPEG-LA .
And proving a H.264 * content * will require licenses after 2010 .
Have fun with that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People license stuff all the time, even standards.
Mozilla needs to get over themselves and provide a way to play standard H.264 videos.Licensing something like h264 is very different.
Its not just the fee (about 5Million pa for FF popularity) its the restrictions that the contract has.
Like promising to enforce DRM or not permitting redistribution.
These licenses are simply not compatible with GPL 2 or 3.
Since I am not free to redistribute FireFox without getting a license from MPEG-LA.
And proving a H.264 *content* will require licenses after 2010.
Have fun with that
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879026</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264354020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By the way, has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing? Have they, you know, said "dudes, we have 33\% of the browser market and our business model isn't structured for this sort of thing". My hunch is they could probably get some kind of deal hammered out. The Mozilla foundation does have some political capital you know--this is a good use of it.</p></div><p>The GPL and patents intentionally mix like oil and water. Directly from paragraph 7 of the GPLv2: "For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program." You can get around this by covenant not to sue *cough*Novell*cough*, but that's abusing a loophole really.</p><p>That works out great in certain circumstances, for example I can't patent something, add that to a GPL project and control distribution by selling patent licenses. But neither can Mozilla, they can't license it from MPEG LA just for themselves, the GPL basically requires them to license it for everyone. That is why you can download the Chromium source, but you will not get a patent license from that either. Only binary builds of Chrome gets the patent license, since a right to sublicense would destroy MPEG LA's revenue model.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way , has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing ?
Have they , you know , said " dudes , we have 33 \ % of the browser market and our business model is n't structured for this sort of thing " .
My hunch is they could probably get some kind of deal hammered out .
The Mozilla foundation does have some political capital you know--this is a good use of it.The GPL and patents intentionally mix like oil and water .
Directly from paragraph 7 of the GPLv2 : " For example , if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you , then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program .
" You can get around this by covenant not to sue * cough * Novell * cough * , but that 's abusing a loophole really.That works out great in certain circumstances , for example I ca n't patent something , add that to a GPL project and control distribution by selling patent licenses .
But neither can Mozilla , they ca n't license it from MPEG LA just for themselves , the GPL basically requires them to license it for everyone .
That is why you can download the Chromium source , but you will not get a patent license from that either .
Only binary builds of Chrome gets the patent license , since a right to sublicense would destroy MPEG LA 's revenue model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the way, has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing?
Have they, you know, said "dudes, we have 33\% of the browser market and our business model isn't structured for this sort of thing".
My hunch is they could probably get some kind of deal hammered out.
The Mozilla foundation does have some political capital you know--this is a good use of it.The GPL and patents intentionally mix like oil and water.
Directly from paragraph 7 of the GPLv2: "For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
" You can get around this by covenant not to sue *cough*Novell*cough*, but that's abusing a loophole really.That works out great in certain circumstances, for example I can't patent something, add that to a GPL project and control distribution by selling patent licenses.
But neither can Mozilla, they can't license it from MPEG LA just for themselves, the GPL basically requires them to license it for everyone.
That is why you can download the Chromium source, but you will not get a patent license from that either.
Only binary builds of Chrome gets the patent license, since a right to sublicense would destroy MPEG LA's revenue model.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878540</id>
	<title>FFmpeg</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1264351080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the LGPLed <a href="http://ffmpeg.org/" title="ffmpeg.org">FFmpeg</a> [ffmpeg.org] library supports H.264 among other codecs, all they need to do is support it as a plugin. They can ship Firefox with a version compiled without "--enable-gpl" and without "--enable-nonfree".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the LGPLed FFmpeg [ ffmpeg.org ] library supports H.264 among other codecs , all they need to do is support it as a plugin .
They can ship Firefox with a version compiled without " --enable-gpl " and without " --enable-nonfree " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the LGPLed FFmpeg [ffmpeg.org] library supports H.264 among other codecs, all they need to do is support it as a plugin.
They can ship Firefox with a version compiled without "--enable-gpl" and without "--enable-nonfree".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878578</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>ilovegeorgebush</author>
	<datestamp>1264351320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It really frustrates me that a technology created and owned by someone (MPEG) and otherwise unrelated to the software created and distributed by another (Firefox) is by proxy restricting success and future adoption.<br> <br>

It is so utterly archaic and unfair that this is allowed to continue; MPEG-LA have the industry by its consumers by their collective balls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really frustrates me that a technology created and owned by someone ( MPEG ) and otherwise unrelated to the software created and distributed by another ( Firefox ) is by proxy restricting success and future adoption .
It is so utterly archaic and unfair that this is allowed to continue ; MPEG-LA have the industry by its consumers by their collective balls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really frustrates me that a technology created and owned by someone (MPEG) and otherwise unrelated to the software created and distributed by another (Firefox) is by proxy restricting success and future adoption.
It is so utterly archaic and unfair that this is allowed to continue; MPEG-LA have the industry by its consumers by their collective balls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879304</id>
	<title>It's also plain old maths.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264355580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's also plain old maths. And, as such, is not patentable. So it's ALREADY a borked patent.</p><p>And you STILL have to rely on A.N.Other to provide your video. You now have to say "supported on Browser X,Y,Z... on OS A,B,C.." instead of "supported under HTML 5".</p><p>Which do you think is going to cause least customer confusion?</p><p>And if your customer is confused, will they buy or leave?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also plain old maths .
And , as such , is not patentable .
So it 's ALREADY a borked patent.And you STILL have to rely on A.N.Other to provide your video .
You now have to say " supported on Browser X,Y,Z... on OS A,B,C.. " instead of " supported under HTML 5 " .Which do you think is going to cause least customer confusion ? And if your customer is confused , will they buy or leave ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also plain old maths.
And, as such, is not patentable.
So it's ALREADY a borked patent.And you STILL have to rely on A.N.Other to provide your video.
You now have to say "supported on Browser X,Y,Z... on OS A,B,C.." instead of "supported under HTML 5".Which do you think is going to cause least customer confusion?And if your customer is confused, will they buy or leave?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881834</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla H.264 Fees = $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1264325760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla doesn't need to bundle H.264 support.  Use a plugin.  It's as if everybody has forgotten that Flash FLV files already support H.264, which means that Firefox already plays H.264 videos.  A mini-campaign to fight a common codec will go nowhere, especially when the proposed alternative (Theora) is inferior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla does n't need to bundle H.264 support .
Use a plugin .
It 's as if everybody has forgotten that Flash FLV files already support H.264 , which means that Firefox already plays H.264 videos .
A mini-campaign to fight a common codec will go nowhere , especially when the proposed alternative ( Theora ) is inferior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla doesn't need to bundle H.264 support.
Use a plugin.
It's as if everybody has forgotten that Flash FLV files already support H.264, which means that Firefox already plays H.264 videos.
A mini-campaign to fight a common codec will go nowhere, especially when the proposed alternative (Theora) is inferior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882582</id>
	<title>Re:Just open up the video architecture</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264330080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Otherwise sites will just push other browsers which do implement H264, or will use plugins like Silverlight / Flash to render the content anyway in Firefox.</p></div><p>Two mutually exclusive scenarios here:<br><b>Scenario 1: HTML5 does not provide a better user experience than Flash.</b> (yeah, right)<br>In which case, why are we worrying. Sites will continue to use Flash. Everyone is happy.</p><p><b>Scenario 2: HTML5 provides a better user experience than Flash</b><br>So, sites will find that their users are demanding HTML5 video instead of Flash.<br>Now, what's the easiest and least alienating to customers:<br>(a) Tell customers "OK, here's your HTML5 video. But if you're using Firefox, go and get another browser."<br>(b) Dual encoding to both Theora and H.264. Delta cost: just the storage.</p><p>If it was my commercial site, I'd do (b). I'd also be crossing my fingers that one day the browser landscape would let me just use Theora, so I could stop paying these pesky license fees for encoding and transmitting H.264.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Otherwise sites will just push other browsers which do implement H264 , or will use plugins like Silverlight / Flash to render the content anyway in Firefox.Two mutually exclusive scenarios here : Scenario 1 : HTML5 does not provide a better user experience than Flash .
( yeah , right ) In which case , why are we worrying .
Sites will continue to use Flash .
Everyone is happy.Scenario 2 : HTML5 provides a better user experience than FlashSo , sites will find that their users are demanding HTML5 video instead of Flash.Now , what 's the easiest and least alienating to customers : ( a ) Tell customers " OK , here 's your HTML5 video .
But if you 're using Firefox , go and get another browser .
" ( b ) Dual encoding to both Theora and H.264 .
Delta cost : just the storage.If it was my commercial site , I 'd do ( b ) .
I 'd also be crossing my fingers that one day the browser landscape would let me just use Theora , so I could stop paying these pesky license fees for encoding and transmitting H.264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Otherwise sites will just push other browsers which do implement H264, or will use plugins like Silverlight / Flash to render the content anyway in Firefox.Two mutually exclusive scenarios here:Scenario 1: HTML5 does not provide a better user experience than Flash.
(yeah, right)In which case, why are we worrying.
Sites will continue to use Flash.
Everyone is happy.Scenario 2: HTML5 provides a better user experience than FlashSo, sites will find that their users are demanding HTML5 video instead of Flash.Now, what's the easiest and least alienating to customers:(a) Tell customers "OK, here's your HTML5 video.
But if you're using Firefox, go and get another browser.
"(b) Dual encoding to both Theora and H.264.
Delta cost: just the storage.If it was my commercial site, I'd do (b).
I'd also be crossing my fingers that one day the browser landscape would let me just use Theora, so I could stop paying these pesky license fees for encoding and transmitting H.264.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885096</id>
	<title>The myth of US software development.</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1264346940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking as someone that has lived all over the world and done extensive amounts of work in the US in Software.</p><p>First off.  Every Country/Region needs to understand that if they make the conditions unfavorable for mid-long term business operations for software development the software shop will move.   ( The whole concept of outsourcing ).</p><p>For quite a long time now we have seen the migration of LARGE data centers to cost effective, dependable locations.  Data centers have different criteria than a software shop but they show us an interesting parallel to software development.  Chicago used to be one of the data centers capitals of the world.  It's not exactly known for that now.  Why? Unfriendly local taxation, cost of power, reliability of power, migrating network backbones away from region.   What I'm saying is data centers moved away from Chicago because the conditions became unfavorable.</p><p>Software development is even more vulnerable.  In the last 24 months I have had contract development done in Vietnam, Brazil, Sri Lanka, India, France and NONE in the United states.  All because of factors like. Cost, Time to Market availability of resource etc.</p><p>Other factors do have impact.  In the example above kernels.  The issue here is the concentration of specialized developer staff.   Is a major factor.  For several years San Fran was the "only" place to set up a software shop of any kind.  Not so any more.  Why? Partly the specialized skill spread out.</p><p>Several of the driving factors for migration away from the US are.  Cost of staff, Cost of facilities, Cost of power, legal over head, governmental regulatory encumbrance.  ( Basically all of them are money )</p><p>Do not for one second believe that what you see on the ground now for jobs and company shops in the US will remain so in 2-5-10 years time.  Taxation in the United states will most likely climb.  Taxes go up expensive jobs will flee.   I have seen dramatic shifts in the IT world over the decades, boom bust, migration and dispersal.  A lot of local changes had to do with government and taxation.</p><p>A common joke around my office circle is.  "How do you make a project over run and never deliver?  Get an IBM project manager from the States on the job."  It may or may not be true.  But it does reflect the sentiment that is out there.  Basically the rest of the world does not look to the United States first for development.</p><p>So you the future leaders of the US software industry.  You need to really pull your finger out of that dark hole it's in and start doing something to improve the reputation, the viability, the cost of software development in the United States.  Cause if you don't wave good buy to another white collar high paying industry.  As someone else said.  The US made this mess and now the US needs to dig them selves out of it.   This statement is also true for other locations on the planet as well.  India for example is facing a very nasty fall in the software industry if conditions don't improve for companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as someone that has lived all over the world and done extensive amounts of work in the US in Software.First off .
Every Country/Region needs to understand that if they make the conditions unfavorable for mid-long term business operations for software development the software shop will move .
( The whole concept of outsourcing ) .For quite a long time now we have seen the migration of LARGE data centers to cost effective , dependable locations .
Data centers have different criteria than a software shop but they show us an interesting parallel to software development .
Chicago used to be one of the data centers capitals of the world .
It 's not exactly known for that now .
Why ? Unfriendly local taxation , cost of power , reliability of power , migrating network backbones away from region .
What I 'm saying is data centers moved away from Chicago because the conditions became unfavorable.Software development is even more vulnerable .
In the last 24 months I have had contract development done in Vietnam , Brazil , Sri Lanka , India , France and NONE in the United states .
All because of factors like .
Cost , Time to Market availability of resource etc.Other factors do have impact .
In the example above kernels .
The issue here is the concentration of specialized developer staff .
Is a major factor .
For several years San Fran was the " only " place to set up a software shop of any kind .
Not so any more .
Why ? Partly the specialized skill spread out.Several of the driving factors for migration away from the US are .
Cost of staff , Cost of facilities , Cost of power , legal over head , governmental regulatory encumbrance .
( Basically all of them are money ) Do not for one second believe that what you see on the ground now for jobs and company shops in the US will remain so in 2-5-10 years time .
Taxation in the United states will most likely climb .
Taxes go up expensive jobs will flee .
I have seen dramatic shifts in the IT world over the decades , boom bust , migration and dispersal .
A lot of local changes had to do with government and taxation.A common joke around my office circle is .
" How do you make a project over run and never deliver ?
Get an IBM project manager from the States on the job .
" It may or may not be true .
But it does reflect the sentiment that is out there .
Basically the rest of the world does not look to the United States first for development.So you the future leaders of the US software industry .
You need to really pull your finger out of that dark hole it 's in and start doing something to improve the reputation , the viability , the cost of software development in the United States .
Cause if you do n't wave good buy to another white collar high paying industry .
As someone else said .
The US made this mess and now the US needs to dig them selves out of it .
This statement is also true for other locations on the planet as well .
India for example is facing a very nasty fall in the software industry if conditions do n't improve for companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as someone that has lived all over the world and done extensive amounts of work in the US in Software.First off.
Every Country/Region needs to understand that if they make the conditions unfavorable for mid-long term business operations for software development the software shop will move.
( The whole concept of outsourcing ).For quite a long time now we have seen the migration of LARGE data centers to cost effective, dependable locations.
Data centers have different criteria than a software shop but they show us an interesting parallel to software development.
Chicago used to be one of the data centers capitals of the world.
It's not exactly known for that now.
Why? Unfriendly local taxation, cost of power, reliability of power, migrating network backbones away from region.
What I'm saying is data centers moved away from Chicago because the conditions became unfavorable.Software development is even more vulnerable.
In the last 24 months I have had contract development done in Vietnam, Brazil, Sri Lanka, India, France and NONE in the United states.
All because of factors like.
Cost, Time to Market availability of resource etc.Other factors do have impact.
In the example above kernels.
The issue here is the concentration of specialized developer staff.
Is a major factor.
For several years San Fran was the "only" place to set up a software shop of any kind.
Not so any more.
Why? Partly the specialized skill spread out.Several of the driving factors for migration away from the US are.
Cost of staff, Cost of facilities, Cost of power, legal over head, governmental regulatory encumbrance.
( Basically all of them are money )Do not for one second believe that what you see on the ground now for jobs and company shops in the US will remain so in 2-5-10 years time.
Taxation in the United states will most likely climb.
Taxes go up expensive jobs will flee.
I have seen dramatic shifts in the IT world over the decades, boom bust, migration and dispersal.
A lot of local changes had to do with government and taxation.A common joke around my office circle is.
"How do you make a project over run and never deliver?
Get an IBM project manager from the States on the job.
"  It may or may not be true.
But it does reflect the sentiment that is out there.
Basically the rest of the world does not look to the United States first for development.So you the future leaders of the US software industry.
You need to really pull your finger out of that dark hole it's in and start doing something to improve the reputation, the viability, the cost of software development in the United States.
Cause if you don't wave good buy to another white collar high paying industry.
As someone else said.
The US made this mess and now the US needs to dig them selves out of it.
This statement is also true for other locations on the planet as well.
India for example is facing a very nasty fall in the software industry if conditions don't improve for companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881212</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>djradon</author>
	<datestamp>1264365660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention USB/PCI and AGP implementations are all hardware devices, presumably to be sold. Your comparison is horrible.</p><p>The day Firefox is "taken" by commercial software will be a sad day indeed. The Mozilla Foundation could probably get a reduced price on a license easily enough, but that's not the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention USB/PCI and AGP implementations are all hardware devices , presumably to be sold .
Your comparison is horrible.The day Firefox is " taken " by commercial software will be a sad day indeed .
The Mozilla Foundation could probably get a reduced price on a license easily enough , but that 's not the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention USB/PCI and AGP implementations are all hardware devices, presumably to be sold.
Your comparison is horrible.The day Firefox is "taken" by commercial software will be a sad day indeed.
The Mozilla Foundation could probably get a reduced price on a license easily enough, but that's not the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428</id>
	<title>Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264350420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet even with a perfectly legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against H.264, tons of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comments will go against FF's decision to promote an open, free (for everyone, not just the end users) and sane video standard over a proprietary one, ensuring that only people with lots of money can create browsers, run video sites, etc.</p><p>It's pretty damn simple, yet no one gets it.  Just like seemingly everything else these days.  Misguided loyalty to one thing because it's been promoted to the end users by those with lots of money as being "obviously" superior wins out over good things simply because people don't want to use common sense and for some reason trust people/companies with greedy motivations simply because of the idea of "they are famous and rich, they must know what's best for me".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet even with a perfectly legitimate , reasonable , intelligent argument against H.264 , tons of / .
comments will go against FF 's decision to promote an open , free ( for everyone , not just the end users ) and sane video standard over a proprietary one , ensuring that only people with lots of money can create browsers , run video sites , etc.It 's pretty damn simple , yet no one gets it .
Just like seemingly everything else these days .
Misguided loyalty to one thing because it 's been promoted to the end users by those with lots of money as being " obviously " superior wins out over good things simply because people do n't want to use common sense and for some reason trust people/companies with greedy motivations simply because of the idea of " they are famous and rich , they must know what 's best for me " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet even with a perfectly legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against H.264, tons of /.
comments will go against FF's decision to promote an open, free (for everyone, not just the end users) and sane video standard over a proprietary one, ensuring that only people with lots of money can create browsers, run video sites, etc.It's pretty damn simple, yet no one gets it.
Just like seemingly everything else these days.
Misguided loyalty to one thing because it's been promoted to the end users by those with lots of money as being "obviously" superior wins out over good things simply because people don't want to use common sense and for some reason trust people/companies with greedy motivations simply because of the idea of "they are famous and rich, they must know what's best for me".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879816</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 Video</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264358880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But in any case, it sounds like a misnomer to call it "HTML5 Video", which sort of implies a standard.</p> </div><p>As far as I understand, the HTML5 standard does not specify ANY standards. They tried, but there were people with vested interests on the committee, and it proved impossible to come to an agreement.</p><p>So, HTML5 says you can use any codecs and any container format within a &lt;VIDEO&gt; tag. It's up to the developer to know what browsers support.</p><p>Sucky, but there it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But in any case , it sounds like a misnomer to call it " HTML5 Video " , which sort of implies a standard .
As far as I understand , the HTML5 standard does not specify ANY standards .
They tried , but there were people with vested interests on the committee , and it proved impossible to come to an agreement.So , HTML5 says you can use any codecs and any container format within a tag .
It 's up to the developer to know what browsers support.Sucky , but there it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in any case, it sounds like a misnomer to call it "HTML5 Video", which sort of implies a standard.
As far as I understand, the HTML5 standard does not specify ANY standards.
They tried, but there were people with vested interests on the committee, and it proved impossible to come to an agreement.So, HTML5 says you can use any codecs and any container format within a  tag.
It's up to the developer to know what browsers support.Sucky, but there it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879314</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 Video</title>
	<author>flooey</author>
	<datestamp>1264355580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Only if people insist on using it. I can't see that it would be in YouTube's interest to use H.264 exclusively.</p> </div><p>The YouTube guys have said that they don't want to spend the hard drive space to hold three different formats on disk (and considering 20 hours of video of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, I can't blame them), and that the bandwidth requirements for the same level of quality are significantly higher for Theora than for H.264.  So basically, YouTube uses H.264 because it's cheaper than any alternative, presumably even after factoring in licensing costs (which I think are capped at like a few million dollars for each licensee, and thus are probably noise to YouTube).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if people insist on using it .
I ca n't see that it would be in YouTube 's interest to use H.264 exclusively .
The YouTube guys have said that they do n't want to spend the hard drive space to hold three different formats on disk ( and considering 20 hours of video of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute , I ca n't blame them ) , and that the bandwidth requirements for the same level of quality are significantly higher for Theora than for H.264 .
So basically , YouTube uses H.264 because it 's cheaper than any alternative , presumably even after factoring in licensing costs ( which I think are capped at like a few million dollars for each licensee , and thus are probably noise to YouTube ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if people insist on using it.
I can't see that it would be in YouTube's interest to use H.264 exclusively.
The YouTube guys have said that they don't want to spend the hard drive space to hold three different formats on disk (and considering 20 hours of video of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, I can't blame them), and that the bandwidth requirements for the same level of quality are significantly higher for Theora than for H.264.
So basically, YouTube uses H.264 because it's cheaper than any alternative, presumably even after factoring in licensing costs (which I think are capped at like a few million dollars for each licensee, and thus are probably noise to YouTube).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1264351380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And yet even with a perfectly legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against H.264, tons of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comments will go against FF's decision to promote an open, free (for everyone, not just the end users) and sane video standard over a proprietary one, ensuring that only people with lots of money can create browsers, run video sites, etc.</p></div><p>You seem to assume that one legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against H.264 immediately excludes it from the race.  I by contrast can come up with three (at least) legitimate, reasonable, intelligent arguments against Ogg Theora:</p><ol> <li>It doesn't have hardware accelerated decoding support on desktop *or* (more importantly) mobile platforms</li><li>It is patented, and in exactly the same way as h264 will form a toll both on the internet</li><li>It's video quality isn't as good as h.264's</li></ol><p>By your logic this rules it out as a choice too.</p><p>I'd rather not view the world in such black and white terms though, and instead weight the two codecs up against each other.  Personally, I see h264 as being the better choice, as it has only a subset of the drawbacks that ogg theora has.</p><p>Final note: The best solution ofc would be for google to release a better codec than ogg theora for free, with no patent risk, and with video quality at least comparable to h264's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet even with a perfectly legitimate , reasonable , intelligent argument against H.264 , tons of / .
comments will go against FF 's decision to promote an open , free ( for everyone , not just the end users ) and sane video standard over a proprietary one , ensuring that only people with lots of money can create browsers , run video sites , etc.You seem to assume that one legitimate , reasonable , intelligent argument against H.264 immediately excludes it from the race .
I by contrast can come up with three ( at least ) legitimate , reasonable , intelligent arguments against Ogg Theora : It does n't have hardware accelerated decoding support on desktop * or * ( more importantly ) mobile platformsIt is patented , and in exactly the same way as h264 will form a toll both on the internetIt 's video quality is n't as good as h.264'sBy your logic this rules it out as a choice too.I 'd rather not view the world in such black and white terms though , and instead weight the two codecs up against each other .
Personally , I see h264 as being the better choice , as it has only a subset of the drawbacks that ogg theora has.Final note : The best solution ofc would be for google to release a better codec than ogg theora for free , with no patent risk , and with video quality at least comparable to h264 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet even with a perfectly legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against H.264, tons of /.
comments will go against FF's decision to promote an open, free (for everyone, not just the end users) and sane video standard over a proprietary one, ensuring that only people with lots of money can create browsers, run video sites, etc.You seem to assume that one legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against H.264 immediately excludes it from the race.
I by contrast can come up with three (at least) legitimate, reasonable, intelligent arguments against Ogg Theora: It doesn't have hardware accelerated decoding support on desktop *or* (more importantly) mobile platformsIt is patented, and in exactly the same way as h264 will form a toll both on the internetIt's video quality isn't as good as h.264'sBy your logic this rules it out as a choice too.I'd rather not view the world in such black and white terms though, and instead weight the two codecs up against each other.
Personally, I see h264 as being the better choice, as it has only a subset of the drawbacks that ogg theora has.Final note: The best solution ofc would be for google to release a better codec than ogg theora for free, with no patent risk, and with video quality at least comparable to h264's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878414</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 Video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264350300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple already has decoders that are properly licensed in QuickTime, so all they have to do is use those in Safari. A technology Firefox can use as well with plugins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple already has decoders that are properly licensed in QuickTime , so all they have to do is use those in Safari .
A technology Firefox can use as well with plugins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple already has decoders that are properly licensed in QuickTime, so all they have to do is use those in Safari.
A technology Firefox can use as well with plugins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879552</id>
	<title>Do no Evil ?????</title>
	<author>DrLov3</author>
	<datestamp>1264357320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Step #1 : Buy youtube.<br> <br>Step #2 : Switch the video format on youtube to H.264, a proprietary format that free browsers can't afford the licenses it needs to distribute a reader for it.<br> <br>Step #3 : Push H.264 part of the open standard HTML 5, even though it's not open at all, thus further shoving free browsers downward the spiral.<br> <br>Step #4 : Win the browser War, pwn the internet, make profit with ur browser built in search engine.<br> <br> <br>..... F***ers,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... (Shakes Fist)<br>We were paying attention....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step # 1 : Buy youtube .
Step # 2 : Switch the video format on youtube to H.264 , a proprietary format that free browsers ca n't afford the licenses it needs to distribute a reader for it .
Step # 3 : Push H.264 part of the open standard HTML 5 , even though it 's not open at all , thus further shoving free browsers downward the spiral .
Step # 4 : Win the browser War , pwn the internet , make profit with ur browser built in search engine .
..... F * * * ers , .... ( Shakes Fist ) We were paying attention... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step #1 : Buy youtube.
Step #2 : Switch the video format on youtube to H.264, a proprietary format that free browsers can't afford the licenses it needs to distribute a reader for it.
Step #3 : Push H.264 part of the open standard HTML 5, even though it's not open at all, thus further shoving free browsers downward the spiral.
Step #4 : Win the browser War, pwn the internet, make profit with ur browser built in search engine.
..... F***ers, .... (Shakes Fist)We were paying attention....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880280</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1264360980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>YouTube, <strong>DailyMotion</strong>, and Vimeo have spoken in favor of H.264. Watch the dominoes topple.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Are the two sites named DailyMotion?

<a href="http://openvideo.dailymotion.com/us" title="dailymotion.com">http://openvideo.dailymotion.com/us</a> [dailymotion.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>YouTube , DailyMotion , and Vimeo have spoken in favor of H.264 .
Watch the dominoes topple .
Are the two sites named DailyMotion ?
http : //openvideo.dailymotion.com/us [ dailymotion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YouTube, DailyMotion, and Vimeo have spoken in favor of H.264.
Watch the dominoes topple.
Are the two sites named DailyMotion?
http://openvideo.dailymotion.com/us [dailymotion.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882132</id>
	<title>Licensing doesn't prevent open sourcing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264327680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can buy a licence from MPEGLA for a using an opensource implementation of H264 such as ffmpeg or x264, entreprises do that already.</p><p>The patents are public so there's no need to hide source code of implementations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can buy a licence from MPEGLA for a using an opensource implementation of H264 such as ffmpeg or x264 , entreprises do that already.The patents are public so there 's no need to hide source code of implementations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can buy a licence from MPEGLA for a using an opensource implementation of H264 such as ffmpeg or x264, entreprises do that already.The patents are public so there's no need to hide source code of implementations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881944</id>
	<title>Another video war?</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264326480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it's like a major web browser creator versus major web video providers. I think the porn industry will say the final word again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's like a major web browser creator versus major web video providers .
I think the porn industry will say the final word again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's like a major web browser creator versus major web video providers.
I think the porn industry will say the final word again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 Video</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1264350240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It's mostly just problem for Mozilla</i> <br> <br>
Only if people insist on using it. I can't see that it would be in YouTube's interest to use H.264 exclusively. <br> <br>
But in any case, it sounds like a misnomer to call it "HTML5 Video", which sort of implies a standard. If the "standard" involves coughing up a whacking great licence fee to use it, lots of people just won't be interested, and H.264 will be consigned to the same back shelves as some of the ogg codecs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's mostly just problem for Mozilla Only if people insist on using it .
I ca n't see that it would be in YouTube 's interest to use H.264 exclusively .
But in any case , it sounds like a misnomer to call it " HTML5 Video " , which sort of implies a standard .
If the " standard " involves coughing up a whacking great licence fee to use it , lots of people just wo n't be interested , and H.264 will be consigned to the same back shelves as some of the ogg codecs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's mostly just problem for Mozilla  
Only if people insist on using it.
I can't see that it would be in YouTube's interest to use H.264 exclusively.
But in any case, it sounds like a misnomer to call it "HTML5 Video", which sort of implies a standard.
If the "standard" involves coughing up a whacking great licence fee to use it, lots of people just won't be interested, and H.264 will be consigned to the same back shelves as some of the ogg codecs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894932</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality that's why FSF will win</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1264410600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I prefer to live in a world of Freedom than one ruled by expediency. </i></p><p>The freedom for there not to be choice and competition in VIDEO tag codecs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer to live in a world of Freedom than one ruled by expediency .
The freedom for there not to be choice and competition in VIDEO tag codecs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer to live in a world of Freedom than one ruled by expediency.
The freedom for there not to be choice and competition in VIDEO tag codecs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879748</id>
	<title>Can we please just start promoting Dirac ?</title>
	<author>/.Rooster</author>
	<datestamp>1264358460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to sound like a repeating record but the Dirac codec produced by BBC R&amp;D is royalty free and extremely good.</p><p>I am sure if you look you will find more but start with these links.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac\_(codec)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac\_(codec)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p><a href="http://diracvideo.org/" title="diracvideo.org" rel="nofollow">http://diracvideo.org/</a> [diracvideo.org]</p><p><a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/dirac/files/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">http://sourceforge.net/projects/dirac/files/</a> [sourceforge.net]</p><p>and if you can watch the promo too.</p><p><a href="http://dirac.kw.bbc.co.uk/download/video/maybefinal/" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://dirac.kw.bbc.co.uk/download/video/maybefinal/</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p>why are we still debating this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to sound like a repeating record but the Dirac codec produced by BBC R&amp;D is royalty free and extremely good.I am sure if you look you will find more but start with these links.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac \ _ ( codec ) [ wikipedia.org ] http : //diracvideo.org/ [ diracvideo.org ] http : //sourceforge.net/projects/dirac/files/ [ sourceforge.net ] and if you can watch the promo too.http : //dirac.kw.bbc.co.uk/download/video/maybefinal/ [ bbc.co.uk ] why are we still debating this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to sound like a repeating record but the Dirac codec produced by BBC R&amp;D is royalty free and extremely good.I am sure if you look you will find more but start with these links.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac\_(codec) [wikipedia.org]http://diracvideo.org/ [diracvideo.org]http://sourceforge.net/projects/dirac/files/ [sourceforge.net]and if you can watch the promo too.http://dirac.kw.bbc.co.uk/download/video/maybefinal/ [bbc.co.uk]why are we still debating this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30895178</id>
	<title>Re:Just give up your principles and compromize</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1264411680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, sometimes there are folks who stick to religious convictions, regardless of the impact. Some religions reject the use of modern medicine, others, apparently, reject the use of some specific operating system interfaces (video), but curiously, not others (images, files, etc).</p><p>And then there's occasionally someone who just wants to get the frickin' job done, and perhaps in a way that people will use it. Which is why everyone says "Linux" today, not "GNUix" or whatever..... Linus just got it done. I'm sure he's got plenty of principles, but they didn't get in the way of building something people would actually use.</p><p>Mozilla looks like they are trying very hard to make themselves a moot point. I rather expect they'll just keep playing videos via a Flash plug-in, years after HTML5 takes off, with increasingly fewer users. Or we'll be getting the popular version of Firefox from somewhere else, the one that adds the external video CODEC option to Mozilla's base.</p><p>They seem to be missing the point entirely here... popularizing Theora would lead to people using it. Force-feeding will not. And until Theora doesn't suck, and does get general support in video applications that are actually creating video (eg, via those same OS-level video CODECs that Mozilla abhors) it's not going to get much use. And I say this as a guy who does both engineering and video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , sometimes there are folks who stick to religious convictions , regardless of the impact .
Some religions reject the use of modern medicine , others , apparently , reject the use of some specific operating system interfaces ( video ) , but curiously , not others ( images , files , etc ) .And then there 's occasionally someone who just wants to get the frickin ' job done , and perhaps in a way that people will use it .
Which is why everyone says " Linux " today , not " GNUix " or whatever..... Linus just got it done .
I 'm sure he 's got plenty of principles , but they did n't get in the way of building something people would actually use.Mozilla looks like they are trying very hard to make themselves a moot point .
I rather expect they 'll just keep playing videos via a Flash plug-in , years after HTML5 takes off , with increasingly fewer users .
Or we 'll be getting the popular version of Firefox from somewhere else , the one that adds the external video CODEC option to Mozilla 's base.They seem to be missing the point entirely here... popularizing Theora would lead to people using it .
Force-feeding will not .
And until Theora does n't suck , and does get general support in video applications that are actually creating video ( eg , via those same OS-level video CODECs that Mozilla abhors ) it 's not going to get much use .
And I say this as a guy who does both engineering and video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, sometimes there are folks who stick to religious convictions, regardless of the impact.
Some religions reject the use of modern medicine, others, apparently, reject the use of some specific operating system interfaces (video), but curiously, not others (images, files, etc).And then there's occasionally someone who just wants to get the frickin' job done, and perhaps in a way that people will use it.
Which is why everyone says "Linux" today, not "GNUix" or whatever..... Linus just got it done.
I'm sure he's got plenty of principles, but they didn't get in the way of building something people would actually use.Mozilla looks like they are trying very hard to make themselves a moot point.
I rather expect they'll just keep playing videos via a Flash plug-in, years after HTML5 takes off, with increasingly fewer users.
Or we'll be getting the popular version of Firefox from somewhere else, the one that adds the external video CODEC option to Mozilla's base.They seem to be missing the point entirely here... popularizing Theora would lead to people using it.
Force-feeding will not.
And until Theora doesn't suck, and does get general support in video applications that are actually creating video (eg, via those same OS-level video CODECs that Mozilla abhors) it's not going to get much use.
And I say this as a guy who does both engineering and video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879916</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't force the willing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't force the willing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't force the willing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30890274</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1264436040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nokia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882844</id>
	<title>Re:Greed will fix it</title>
	<author>MathiasRav</author>
	<datestamp>1264331700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google wants Microsoft's desktop monopoly to break, and at the same time they compete directly with Apple's iTunes. As a consequence their only realistic shot at this is to help Linux flourish.</p><p>Microsoft sees Google as a threat to their monopoly and hence they can't let Google kill Firefox as Firefox users would likely prefer chrome to IE, thereby strengthening google further.</p></div><p>Or, you know, Google and Microsoft could be enemies and still both want Mozilla and Apple to die.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google wants Microsoft 's desktop monopoly to break , and at the same time they compete directly with Apple 's iTunes .
As a consequence their only realistic shot at this is to help Linux flourish.Microsoft sees Google as a threat to their monopoly and hence they ca n't let Google kill Firefox as Firefox users would likely prefer chrome to IE , thereby strengthening google further.Or , you know , Google and Microsoft could be enemies and still both want Mozilla and Apple to die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google wants Microsoft's desktop monopoly to break, and at the same time they compete directly with Apple's iTunes.
As a consequence their only realistic shot at this is to help Linux flourish.Microsoft sees Google as a threat to their monopoly and hence they can't let Google kill Firefox as Firefox users would likely prefer chrome to IE, thereby strengthening google further.Or, you know, Google and Microsoft could be enemies and still both want Mozilla and Apple to die.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878870</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264353120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Little problem: Even if Mozilla caves in and pays the license fee, that does not cover anyone else distributing Firefox. Canonical would <em>also</em> have to pay the $5 million for Ubuntu's browser. Firefox would effectively no longer be open source as it would be illegal to compile it (with H.264 support) and distribute the resulting binary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Little problem : Even if Mozilla caves in and pays the license fee , that does not cover anyone else distributing Firefox .
Canonical would also have to pay the $ 5 million for Ubuntu 's browser .
Firefox would effectively no longer be open source as it would be illegal to compile it ( with H.264 support ) and distribute the resulting binary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Little problem: Even if Mozilla caves in and pays the license fee, that does not cover anyone else distributing Firefox.
Canonical would also have to pay the $5 million for Ubuntu's browser.
Firefox would effectively no longer be open source as it would be illegal to compile it (with H.264 support) and distribute the resulting binary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882088</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1264327440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel like an evil person, but honestly I'm ok with that.</p><p>h.264 is a specific technology - you should able to patent that and charge or not charge what you want for that. The problem with software patents has always been about patenting vague concepts and obvious designs. h.264 is a tech that took a lot of work and made a large jump in quality. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to charge for that. It just sucks that there isn't really a good mechanism for that world and the GPL to interact better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel like an evil person , but honestly I 'm ok with that.h.264 is a specific technology - you should able to patent that and charge or not charge what you want for that .
The problem with software patents has always been about patenting vague concepts and obvious designs .
h.264 is a tech that took a lot of work and made a large jump in quality .
There 's no reason you should n't be able to charge for that .
It just sucks that there is n't really a good mechanism for that world and the GPL to interact better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel like an evil person, but honestly I'm ok with that.h.264 is a specific technology - you should able to patent that and charge or not charge what you want for that.
The problem with software patents has always been about patenting vague concepts and obvious designs.
h.264 is a tech that took a lot of work and made a large jump in quality.
There's no reason you shouldn't be able to charge for that.
It just sucks that there isn't really a good mechanism for that world and the GPL to interact better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884448</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1264342560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are not forcing theora.</p><p>We are simply not forcing patented technologies in HTML 5. It does not belong in it and the www consortium wants an alternative to flash. This is a reasonable requests.</p><p>Mozilla is upset because they can't use html 5 purely. They simply just can't distribute it and a year from now you may have to wipe your precious linux box for Windows so you can participate on the web when the mpeg companies start being jerks and pusing drm and monopoly fees on everyone.</p><p>Worse Hollywood has been known to throw teenagers in jail for linking code and websites. Firefox might have to crippled and force everyone to use IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are not forcing theora.We are simply not forcing patented technologies in HTML 5 .
It does not belong in it and the www consortium wants an alternative to flash .
This is a reasonable requests.Mozilla is upset because they ca n't use html 5 purely .
They simply just ca n't distribute it and a year from now you may have to wipe your precious linux box for Windows so you can participate on the web when the mpeg companies start being jerks and pusing drm and monopoly fees on everyone.Worse Hollywood has been known to throw teenagers in jail for linking code and websites .
Firefox might have to crippled and force everyone to use IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are not forcing theora.We are simply not forcing patented technologies in HTML 5.
It does not belong in it and the www consortium wants an alternative to flash.
This is a reasonable requests.Mozilla is upset because they can't use html 5 purely.
They simply just can't distribute it and a year from now you may have to wipe your precious linux box for Windows so you can participate on the web when the mpeg companies start being jerks and pusing drm and monopoly fees on everyone.Worse Hollywood has been known to throw teenagers in jail for linking code and websites.
Firefox might have to crippled and force everyone to use IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879596</id>
	<title>Firefox can't compete so everyone else is evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see how open source works now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see how open source works now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see how open source works now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880338</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1264361220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flash <em>can</em> be H.264, but that's only true for Flash 9. If you want to support Flash 6 and 7 you need Sorenson Spark. If you are content to just support Flash 8 you still need On2 VP6. In short, Flash is Flash, but might play some video formats, Flash 9 and up will play H.264, older versions <em>will not</em>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash can be H.264 , but that 's only true for Flash 9 .
If you want to support Flash 6 and 7 you need Sorenson Spark .
If you are content to just support Flash 8 you still need On2 VP6 .
In short , Flash is Flash , but might play some video formats , Flash 9 and up will play H.264 , older versions will not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash can be H.264, but that's only true for Flash 9.
If you want to support Flash 6 and 7 you need Sorenson Spark.
If you are content to just support Flash 8 you still need On2 VP6.
In short, Flash is Flash, but might play some video formats, Flash 9 and up will play H.264, older versions will not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883714</id>
	<title>Re:software patents are immoral</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1264337340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>do we respect the idea that the church of scientology has a copyright on its sacred texts?</p></div></blockquote><p>I can't speak for you or anyone else, but my answer is yes: I do respect the idea that the CoS has a copyright on whatever publishes. Because no matter how batshit insane/corrupt/immoral the organization is, Free Software would not exist without copyright and Free Software is pretty important to me. The CoS needs to be fought for the things that they are truly guilty of.</p><blockquote><div><p>of course this is bullshit, just as much as it is bullshit that the RIAA attempts to control the flow of bits,</p></div></blockquote><p>Not sure exactly what you mean by "control the flow of bits," but if you're talking about DRM then I'd have to say that you're always free to vote with your money and not buy content or devices which are encumbered by DRM.</p><blockquote><div><p>or that the chinese autocracy attempts to control the flow of information: the entirety of the phylosophical concept of putting roadblocks on the flow of ideas is a form weakness, failure. it leads to a less rich society</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not supportive of the Chinese government's policies and actions, but good luck with that "less rich society" line when China's economy has boomed over the last few decades and a significant percentage of their citizens are just now getting a taste of what we Americans have considered a middle-class lifestyle for almost a century. If their economic growth continues as is, (and our continues to stagnate) then China could easily overtake the U.S. as the world's leading superpower within my lifetime.</p><blockquote><div><p>ip law must be actively fought</p></div></blockquote><p>No, the <i>bad parts</i> of IP law must be actively fought. How would you feel if some big shot in Hollywood took your low-budget horror flick, softened the dialogue a bit, refilmed it with CGI special effects, gave the starring role to Brenden Fraser, made hundreds of millions in merchandise agreements alone, and didn't even bother to say thanks? I guess you'd be okay with that. I sure wouldn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>do we respect the idea that the church of scientology has a copyright on its sacred texts ? I ca n't speak for you or anyone else , but my answer is yes : I do respect the idea that the CoS has a copyright on whatever publishes .
Because no matter how batshit insane/corrupt/immoral the organization is , Free Software would not exist without copyright and Free Software is pretty important to me .
The CoS needs to be fought for the things that they are truly guilty of.of course this is bullshit , just as much as it is bullshit that the RIAA attempts to control the flow of bits,Not sure exactly what you mean by " control the flow of bits , " but if you 're talking about DRM then I 'd have to say that you 're always free to vote with your money and not buy content or devices which are encumbered by DRM.or that the chinese autocracy attempts to control the flow of information : the entirety of the phylosophical concept of putting roadblocks on the flow of ideas is a form weakness , failure .
it leads to a less rich societyI 'm not supportive of the Chinese government 's policies and actions , but good luck with that " less rich society " line when China 's economy has boomed over the last few decades and a significant percentage of their citizens are just now getting a taste of what we Americans have considered a middle-class lifestyle for almost a century .
If their economic growth continues as is , ( and our continues to stagnate ) then China could easily overtake the U.S. as the world 's leading superpower within my lifetime.ip law must be actively foughtNo , the bad parts of IP law must be actively fought .
How would you feel if some big shot in Hollywood took your low-budget horror flick , softened the dialogue a bit , refilmed it with CGI special effects , gave the starring role to Brenden Fraser , made hundreds of millions in merchandise agreements alone , and did n't even bother to say thanks ?
I guess you 'd be okay with that .
I sure would n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do we respect the idea that the church of scientology has a copyright on its sacred texts?I can't speak for you or anyone else, but my answer is yes: I do respect the idea that the CoS has a copyright on whatever publishes.
Because no matter how batshit insane/corrupt/immoral the organization is, Free Software would not exist without copyright and Free Software is pretty important to me.
The CoS needs to be fought for the things that they are truly guilty of.of course this is bullshit, just as much as it is bullshit that the RIAA attempts to control the flow of bits,Not sure exactly what you mean by "control the flow of bits," but if you're talking about DRM then I'd have to say that you're always free to vote with your money and not buy content or devices which are encumbered by DRM.or that the chinese autocracy attempts to control the flow of information: the entirety of the phylosophical concept of putting roadblocks on the flow of ideas is a form weakness, failure.
it leads to a less rich societyI'm not supportive of the Chinese government's policies and actions, but good luck with that "less rich society" line when China's economy has boomed over the last few decades and a significant percentage of their citizens are just now getting a taste of what we Americans have considered a middle-class lifestyle for almost a century.
If their economic growth continues as is, (and our continues to stagnate) then China could easily overtake the U.S. as the world's leading superpower within my lifetime.ip law must be actively foughtNo, the bad parts of IP law must be actively fought.
How would you feel if some big shot in Hollywood took your low-budget horror flick, softened the dialogue a bit, refilmed it with CGI special effects, gave the starring role to Brenden Fraser, made hundreds of millions in merchandise agreements alone, and didn't even bother to say thanks?
I guess you'd be okay with that.
I sure wouldn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878734</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>porneL</author>
	<datestamp>1264352220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is patented, and in exactly the same way as h264 will form a toll both on the internet</p></div><p>All known Theora patents have royalty-free license. Only thing that is "exactly same way" here is risk of submarine patents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is patented , and in exactly the same way as h264 will form a toll both on the internetAll known Theora patents have royalty-free license .
Only thing that is " exactly same way " here is risk of submarine patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is patented, and in exactly the same way as h264 will form a toll both on the internetAll known Theora patents have royalty-free license.
Only thing that is "exactly same way" here is risk of submarine patents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879060</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 Video</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1264354260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>It's mostly just problem for Mozilla</i>


Only if people insist on using it. I can't see that it would be in YouTube's interest to use H.264 exclusively.</p></div><p>YouTube already encodes everything in H.264 for embedding in Flash and for portable devices like the iPhone which consume the video directly since it does not support Flash. Why should everyone be forced to download or include in their portable device an Theora plug-in just to support  yet another format when H264 is already available on all commercial desktop and mobile platforms?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But in any case, it sounds like a misnomer to call it "HTML5 Video", which sort of implies a standard. If the "standard" involves coughing up a whacking great licence fee to use it, lots of people just won't be interested, and H.264 will be consigned to the same back shelves as some of the ogg codecs.</p></div><p>Perhaps you should buy an old fashioned dictionary to look up the word "standard". I'm all for open standards but not when they are obscure or inferior to the industry standards and those standards are available for anyone to implement for a small fee.
</p><p>
I hate to break it to you but almost everyone is already using H.264 to distribute video whether it be directly or embedded within a flash video file. It has wide industry support in both software and hardware (HD Video cameras). To use Theora, you would have to re-encode all of your video in order to use it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's mostly just problem for Mozilla Only if people insist on using it .
I ca n't see that it would be in YouTube 's interest to use H.264 exclusively.YouTube already encodes everything in H.264 for embedding in Flash and for portable devices like the iPhone which consume the video directly since it does not support Flash .
Why should everyone be forced to download or include in their portable device an Theora plug-in just to support yet another format when H264 is already available on all commercial desktop and mobile platforms ? But in any case , it sounds like a misnomer to call it " HTML5 Video " , which sort of implies a standard .
If the " standard " involves coughing up a whacking great licence fee to use it , lots of people just wo n't be interested , and H.264 will be consigned to the same back shelves as some of the ogg codecs.Perhaps you should buy an old fashioned dictionary to look up the word " standard " .
I 'm all for open standards but not when they are obscure or inferior to the industry standards and those standards are available for anyone to implement for a small fee .
I hate to break it to you but almost everyone is already using H.264 to distribute video whether it be directly or embedded within a flash video file .
It has wide industry support in both software and hardware ( HD Video cameras ) .
To use Theora , you would have to re-encode all of your video in order to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's mostly just problem for Mozilla


Only if people insist on using it.
I can't see that it would be in YouTube's interest to use H.264 exclusively.YouTube already encodes everything in H.264 for embedding in Flash and for portable devices like the iPhone which consume the video directly since it does not support Flash.
Why should everyone be forced to download or include in their portable device an Theora plug-in just to support  yet another format when H264 is already available on all commercial desktop and mobile platforms?But in any case, it sounds like a misnomer to call it "HTML5 Video", which sort of implies a standard.
If the "standard" involves coughing up a whacking great licence fee to use it, lots of people just won't be interested, and H.264 will be consigned to the same back shelves as some of the ogg codecs.Perhaps you should buy an old fashioned dictionary to look up the word "standard".
I'm all for open standards but not when they are obscure or inferior to the industry standards and those standards are available for anyone to implement for a small fee.
I hate to break it to you but almost everyone is already using H.264 to distribute video whether it be directly or embedded within a flash video file.
It has wide industry support in both software and hardware (HD Video cameras).
To use Theora, you would have to re-encode all of your video in order to use it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30889978</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264434840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia is using Ogg/Theora, using the video tag; however, Safari and IE can view it as well using a Java applet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is using Ogg/Theora , using the video tag ; however , Safari and IE can view it as well using a Java applet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is using Ogg/Theora, using the video tag; however, Safari and IE can view it as well using a Java applet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884700</id>
	<title>Re:Just open up the video architecture</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264344360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only argument that has any meaning is the first one:</p><p>"Probably most important: we want to focus our energy on promoting open unencumbered codecs at this time."</p><p>All the rest of them don't make any sense from technical standpoint. That only Win7 has H.264 support of all Windows versions is irrelevant, because by the time VIDEO element is actually in widespread non-beta use, Win7 will take the majority. The claim about "highly variable quality of codecs" is irrelevant, since we're talking specifically about H.264 here, which is likely to come in a single "official" implementation. And so on.</p><p>In fact, all these points equally apply to e.g. GStreamer on Linux, so I take it to mean that Firefox won't use GStreamer there either. Well, good luck with that, given that recent Opera for Linux alphas already spot GStreamer support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only argument that has any meaning is the first one : " Probably most important : we want to focus our energy on promoting open unencumbered codecs at this time .
" All the rest of them do n't make any sense from technical standpoint .
That only Win7 has H.264 support of all Windows versions is irrelevant , because by the time VIDEO element is actually in widespread non-beta use , Win7 will take the majority .
The claim about " highly variable quality of codecs " is irrelevant , since we 're talking specifically about H.264 here , which is likely to come in a single " official " implementation .
And so on.In fact , all these points equally apply to e.g .
GStreamer on Linux , so I take it to mean that Firefox wo n't use GStreamer there either .
Well , good luck with that , given that recent Opera for Linux alphas already spot GStreamer support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only argument that has any meaning is the first one:"Probably most important: we want to focus our energy on promoting open unencumbered codecs at this time.
"All the rest of them don't make any sense from technical standpoint.
That only Win7 has H.264 support of all Windows versions is irrelevant, because by the time VIDEO element is actually in widespread non-beta use, Win7 will take the majority.
The claim about "highly variable quality of codecs" is irrelevant, since we're talking specifically about H.264 here, which is likely to come in a single "official" implementation.
And so on.In fact, all these points equally apply to e.g.
GStreamer on Linux, so I take it to mean that Firefox won't use GStreamer there either.
Well, good luck with that, given that recent Opera for Linux alphas already spot GStreamer support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878716</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1264352160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license</p></div><p>Yeah, that'll happen right after you start paying $5.99 to install the browser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the licenseYeah , that 'll happen right after you start paying $ 5.99 to install the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the licenseYeah, that'll happen right after you start paying $5.99 to install the browser.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882070</id>
	<title>Re:We shouldn't wish to be forced to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264327380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, maybe, YouTube and Vimeo use h264 because it's a superior codec that gives higher quality at lower bitrates - which is very important for streaming video? Not everything is a big financial conspiracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , maybe , YouTube and Vimeo use h264 because it 's a superior codec that gives higher quality at lower bitrates - which is very important for streaming video ?
Not everything is a big financial conspiracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, maybe, YouTube and Vimeo use h264 because it's a superior codec that gives higher quality at lower bitrates - which is very important for streaming video?
Not everything is a big financial conspiracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881090</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264364940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The best solution ofc would be for google to release a better codec than ogg theora for free, with no patent risk, and with video quality at least comparable to h264's.</p></div><p>I think the problem is that there are patents for many of the methods that you'd necessarily use in a modern video codec.</p><p>Imagine trying to build a non-patent-encumbered car, when someone held patents on things like tyres, steering wheels, cams...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best solution ofc would be for google to release a better codec than ogg theora for free , with no patent risk , and with video quality at least comparable to h264 's.I think the problem is that there are patents for many of the methods that you 'd necessarily use in a modern video codec.Imagine trying to build a non-patent-encumbered car , when someone held patents on things like tyres , steering wheels , cams.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best solution ofc would be for google to release a better codec than ogg theora for free, with no patent risk, and with video quality at least comparable to h264's.I think the problem is that there are patents for many of the methods that you'd necessarily use in a modern video codec.Imagine trying to build a non-patent-encumbered car, when someone held patents on things like tyres, steering wheels, cams...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878994</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264353840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You apparently didn't read the article.  The issue is not that Mozilla can't get a license; it can.  The issue is that it sees doing so as actively harmful to the web and to users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You apparently did n't read the article .
The issue is not that Mozilla ca n't get a license ; it can .
The issue is that it sees doing so as actively harmful to the web and to users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You apparently didn't read the article.
The issue is not that Mozilla can't get a license; it can.
The issue is that it sees doing so as actively harmful to the web and to users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882094</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla H.264 Fees = $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>jrcamp</author>
	<datestamp>1264327440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By some estimates Firefox has over 270 million users.  That is less than 2 cents a user.  Can somebody tell me where to send my 2 cents (literally) so I can get on with watching adorable cats struggle to stay awake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By some estimates Firefox has over 270 million users .
That is less than 2 cents a user .
Can somebody tell me where to send my 2 cents ( literally ) so I can get on with watching adorable cats struggle to stay awake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By some estimates Firefox has over 270 million users.
That is less than 2 cents a user.
Can somebody tell me where to send my 2 cents (literally) so I can get on with watching adorable cats struggle to stay awake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1264353120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing, no matter how good it looks</p></div><p>Nonsense. Firefox can use any codec that is already installed on the user's system. It's only because they have decided that they should try to force Theora on people that they are rejecting that solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing , no matter how good it looksNonsense .
Firefox can use any codec that is already installed on the user 's system .
It 's only because they have decided that they should try to force Theora on people that they are rejecting that solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing, no matter how good it looksNonsense.
Firefox can use any codec that is already installed on the user's system.
It's only because they have decided that they should try to force Theora on people that they are rejecting that solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879798</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264358820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, mozilla *CAN'T* pay for the license. It's not a legal possibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , mozilla * CA N'T * pay for the license .
It 's not a legal possibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, mozilla *CAN'T* pay for the license.
It's not a legal possibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879114</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1264354620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>With software patents there is no such thing as free from patent risk. Both mepg2 and h264 have had litigation threats......</htmltext>
<tokenext>With software patents there is no such thing as free from patent risk .
Both mepg2 and h264 have had litigation threats..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With software patents there is no such thing as free from patent risk.
Both mepg2 and h264 have had litigation threats......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878750</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>CowboyBob500</author>
	<datestamp>1264352280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It is so utterly archaic and unfair that this is allowed to continue; MPEG-LA have the <b>US</b> industry by its consumers by their collective balls</i>
<br> <br>
FTFY</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is so utterly archaic and unfair that this is allowed to continue ; MPEG-LA have the US industry by its consumers by their collective balls FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is so utterly archaic and unfair that this is allowed to continue; MPEG-LA have the US industry by its consumers by their collective balls
 
FTFY</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883912</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264338660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Slashdot is in the United States so please don't whine about this on a U.S. site."</p><p>I don't see why he shouldn't.</p><p>I agree with the rest of your point, that the US matters enough that outside-US-only features are non-starters (particularly since the bulk of mozilla development takes place in the US), but slashdot's country-of-origin doesn't seem that important.</p><p>And a huge chunk of the non-US market has treaties with the US that mean US patent laws apply there (and those country's patent laws apply in the US) to some extent, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Slashdot is in the United States so please do n't whine about this on a U.S .
site. " I do n't see why he should n't.I agree with the rest of your point , that the US matters enough that outside-US-only features are non-starters ( particularly since the bulk of mozilla development takes place in the US ) , but slashdot 's country-of-origin does n't seem that important.And a huge chunk of the non-US market has treaties with the US that mean US patent laws apply there ( and those country 's patent laws apply in the US ) to some extent , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Slashdot is in the United States so please don't whine about this on a U.S.
site."I don't see why he shouldn't.I agree with the rest of your point, that the US matters enough that outside-US-only features are non-starters (particularly since the bulk of mozilla development takes place in the US), but slashdot's country-of-origin doesn't seem that important.And a huge chunk of the non-US market has treaties with the US that mean US patent laws apply there (and those country's patent laws apply in the US) to some extent, anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878550</id>
	<title>Handbr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264351140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, given that H264 is a really bad idea license-wise, why did Handbrake completely switch over to it? The "xvid is hard" or "divx is old" doesn't seem to hold much water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , given that H264 is a really bad idea license-wise , why did Handbrake completely switch over to it ?
The " xvid is hard " or " divx is old " does n't seem to hold much water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, given that H264 is a really bad idea license-wise, why did Handbrake completely switch over to it?
The "xvid is hard" or "divx is old" doesn't seem to hold much water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878678</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please.</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264351920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume you did read the articles?  They do discuss this, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume you did read the articles ?
They do discuss this , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume you did read the articles?
They do discuss this, you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798</id>
	<title>How to silently kill firefox</title>
	<author>ammorais</author>
	<datestamp>1264352760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How to silently kill Firefox:</p><p>* Support Firefox trough funding (so that nobody can call you evil)</p><p>* Buy one of the most successful video sites.</p><p>* Implement a technology on this site that you know for sure Firefox can't use.</p><p>* Reduce competition on this site by using a video format  not everyone can use on their site(increasing linking and video embedding to your own site)</p><p>* Support this video format on your own browser.</p><p>*Profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How to silently kill Firefox : * Support Firefox trough funding ( so that nobody can call you evil ) * Buy one of the most successful video sites .
* Implement a technology on this site that you know for sure Firefox ca n't use .
* Reduce competition on this site by using a video format not everyone can use on their site ( increasing linking and video embedding to your own site ) * Support this video format on your own browser .
* Profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How to silently kill Firefox:* Support Firefox trough funding (so that nobody can call you evil)* Buy one of the most successful video sites.
* Implement a technology on this site that you know for sure Firefox can't use.
* Reduce competition on this site by using a video format  not everyone can use on their site(increasing linking and video embedding to your own site)* Support this video format on your own browser.
*Profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879056</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1264354200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done. Otherwise, watch Chrome really destroy Firefox.</p></div><p>Time for Linux users to face reality and just give up and use Windows, as most other people have done.</p><p>Oh, we didn't do that in 2000 and we have a strong, functioning, free as in freedom operating system now? I wonder how that could have happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done .
Otherwise , watch Chrome really destroy Firefox.Time for Linux users to face reality and just give up and use Windows , as most other people have done.Oh , we did n't do that in 2000 and we have a strong , functioning , free as in freedom operating system now ?
I wonder how that could have happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done.
Otherwise, watch Chrome really destroy Firefox.Time for Linux users to face reality and just give up and use Windows, as most other people have done.Oh, we didn't do that in 2000 and we have a strong, functioning, free as in freedom operating system now?
I wonder how that could have happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884028</id>
	<title>Re:Just open up the video architecture</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1264339440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Probably most important: we want to focus our energy on promoting open unencumbered codecs at this time.</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably most important : we want to focus our energy on promoting open unencumbered codecs at this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably most important: we want to focus our energy on promoting open unencumbered codecs at this time. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885092</id>
	<title>Re:How to silently kill firefox</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1264346880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes! You've uncovered Google's secret plans to spend billions of dollars on YouTube, enter a new field by producing a high-quality browser, and support the better technology in a format war, all so that they could get traffic to their search engine? Which they were already getting from Firefox anyway...because...umm...yeah. I got nuthin'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes !
You 've uncovered Google 's secret plans to spend billions of dollars on YouTube , enter a new field by producing a high-quality browser , and support the better technology in a format war , all so that they could get traffic to their search engine ?
Which they were already getting from Firefox anyway...because...umm...yeah .
I got nuthin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes!
You've uncovered Google's secret plans to spend billions of dollars on YouTube, enter a new field by producing a high-quality browser, and support the better technology in a format war, all so that they could get traffic to their search engine?
Which they were already getting from Firefox anyway...because...umm...yeah.
I got nuthin'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884402</id>
	<title>Re:The route of mp3?</title>
	<author>reub2000</author>
	<datestamp>1264342260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many of the major linux distros don't include an mp3 decoder by default because of the patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of the major linux distros do n't include an mp3 decoder by default because of the patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of the major linux distros don't include an mp3 decoder by default because of the patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880918</id>
	<title>"RMS Free"</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1264363860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, "RMS Free" is a lot clearer than "Free", "Libre", blah blah.  You say "RMS Free", and we all know what that means, and those that don't know won't falsely assume they know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , " RMS Free " is a lot clearer than " Free " , " Libre " , blah blah .
You say " RMS Free " , and we all know what that means , and those that do n't know wo n't falsely assume they know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, "RMS Free" is a lot clearer than "Free", "Libre", blah blah.
You say "RMS Free", and we all know what that means, and those that don't know won't falsely assume they know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878598</id>
	<title>Reasons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264351500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>H.264 looks better that Ogg and makes smaller files. Nobody is going to say, oh I'd like my video to look worse and cost people more to download please! High quality video providers will use H.264 anyway for this reason. If Ogg was the standard everyone will end up installing H,264 anyway and the standard will be ignored.

Everyone already has H.264 software. Nobody has Ogg software. I bet if you checked outside of this thread you'd find 0.1\% of people have it an about 90\% can alreay play H264

Thirdly ogg just sounds stupid. I wouldn't implement it for the name alone. I might as well write "NOW SUPPORTS FARTY FARTY PLOP PLOP" on the outside of the box. The name shouldn't matter. But it does. A lot!</htmltext>
<tokenext>H.264 looks better that Ogg and makes smaller files .
Nobody is going to say , oh I 'd like my video to look worse and cost people more to download please !
High quality video providers will use H.264 anyway for this reason .
If Ogg was the standard everyone will end up installing H,264 anyway and the standard will be ignored .
Everyone already has H.264 software .
Nobody has Ogg software .
I bet if you checked outside of this thread you 'd find 0.1 \ % of people have it an about 90 \ % can alreay play H264 Thirdly ogg just sounds stupid .
I would n't implement it for the name alone .
I might as well write " NOW SUPPORTS FARTY FARTY PLOP PLOP " on the outside of the box .
The name should n't matter .
But it does .
A lot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H.264 looks better that Ogg and makes smaller files.
Nobody is going to say, oh I'd like my video to look worse and cost people more to download please!
High quality video providers will use H.264 anyway for this reason.
If Ogg was the standard everyone will end up installing H,264 anyway and the standard will be ignored.
Everyone already has H.264 software.
Nobody has Ogg software.
I bet if you checked outside of this thread you'd find 0.1\% of people have it an about 90\% can alreay play H264

Thirdly ogg just sounds stupid.
I wouldn't implement it for the name alone.
I might as well write "NOW SUPPORTS FARTY FARTY PLOP PLOP" on the outside of the box.
The name shouldn't matter.
But it does.
A lot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879146</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264354800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's my problem with the idea that Firefox doesn't "Just work".</p><p>No other browser supports No Script.</p><p>The more I work with the internet on a daily basis, the more convinced I become that managing which hosts and sites are allowed to execute ANY code on my machine is something I was very fine granular control over.</p><p>I like Chrome (I'm posting this from Chrome at the moment, actually, as I'm currently booted into Win7 instead of my normal Ubuntu install).  However, I would never think to use it as my daily browser, because Noscript on Firefox is simply too powerful.</p><p>At the end of the day, if Firefox refuses to support H264, and the other browsers refuse to enable support for add-ons like Noscript in any meaningful way, I'll use Firefox for everything except video, and write my own add-on to launch links to all the major video sites in Chrome or Chromium.</p><p>I don't care how well it "just works" if it compromises my machine, and there are a helluva lot of geeks just like me in the same boat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my problem with the idea that Firefox does n't " Just work " .No other browser supports No Script.The more I work with the internet on a daily basis , the more convinced I become that managing which hosts and sites are allowed to execute ANY code on my machine is something I was very fine granular control over.I like Chrome ( I 'm posting this from Chrome at the moment , actually , as I 'm currently booted into Win7 instead of my normal Ubuntu install ) .
However , I would never think to use it as my daily browser , because Noscript on Firefox is simply too powerful.At the end of the day , if Firefox refuses to support H264 , and the other browsers refuse to enable support for add-ons like Noscript in any meaningful way , I 'll use Firefox for everything except video , and write my own add-on to launch links to all the major video sites in Chrome or Chromium.I do n't care how well it " just works " if it compromises my machine , and there are a helluva lot of geeks just like me in the same boat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my problem with the idea that Firefox doesn't "Just work".No other browser supports No Script.The more I work with the internet on a daily basis, the more convinced I become that managing which hosts and sites are allowed to execute ANY code on my machine is something I was very fine granular control over.I like Chrome (I'm posting this from Chrome at the moment, actually, as I'm currently booted into Win7 instead of my normal Ubuntu install).
However, I would never think to use it as my daily browser, because Noscript on Firefox is simply too powerful.At the end of the day, if Firefox refuses to support H264, and the other browsers refuse to enable support for add-ons like Noscript in any meaningful way, I'll use Firefox for everything except video, and write my own add-on to launch links to all the major video sites in Chrome or Chromium.I don't care how well it "just works" if it compromises my machine, and there are a helluva lot of geeks just like me in the same boat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880568</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1264362240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No other browser supports NoScript-like functionality except for, usually ignored in such "only FF supports that" rants, Opera. For a long, long time...</p><p>BTW, Opera also stands behind Theora (and generally a web accessible to everybody), <i>they</i> proposed the  tag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No other browser supports NoScript-like functionality except for , usually ignored in such " only FF supports that " rants , Opera .
For a long , long time...BTW , Opera also stands behind Theora ( and generally a web accessible to everybody ) , they proposed the tag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No other browser supports NoScript-like functionality except for, usually ignored in such "only FF supports that" rants, Opera.
For a long, long time...BTW, Opera also stands behind Theora (and generally a web accessible to everybody), they proposed the  tag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878950</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1264353540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done.</p></div><p>Except the problem is how do you keep the users from redistrubting the code that has how to decode a h264 file? and the users they give it to, and so on? Good luck getting a license from MPEG-LA that grants everyone a license to use it. Also, is Chrome(not chromium) available for linux distros other than debian/ubuntu/redhat/SUSE? slackware? gentoo? LFS? and host of others, see distro watch, because Chromium does not have support for the html5/h264 youtube.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done.Except the problem is how do you keep the users from redistrubting the code that has how to decode a h264 file ?
and the users they give it to , and so on ?
Good luck getting a license from MPEG-LA that grants everyone a license to use it .
Also , is Chrome ( not chromium ) available for linux distros other than debian/ubuntu/redhat/SUSE ?
slackware ? gentoo ?
LFS ? and host of others , see distro watch , because Chromium does not have support for the html5/h264 youtube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done.Except the problem is how do you keep the users from redistrubting the code that has how to decode a h264 file?
and the users they give it to, and so on?
Good luck getting a license from MPEG-LA that grants everyone a license to use it.
Also, is Chrome(not chromium) available for linux distros other than debian/ubuntu/redhat/SUSE?
slackware? gentoo?
LFS? and host of others, see distro watch, because Chromium does not have support for the html5/h264 youtube.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880144</id>
	<title>Re:How to silently kill firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting? What the hell!? Why would Google want to kill Firefox and spend BILLIONS trying to do it??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting ?
What the hell ! ?
Why would Google want to kill Firefox and spend BILLIONS trying to do it ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting?
What the hell!?
Why would Google want to kill Firefox and spend BILLIONS trying to do it?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882304</id>
	<title>Re:Just give up your principles and compromize</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1264328700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>They can't do that as they explain in the blog entry a) that most windows users don't have an H264 codec and b) It's pissing on their principles (my words, not theirs). And I see their point. The Mozilla people want to be able to browse the internet with a completely free stack. That is their point: a completely free stack.</i>
<p>
A browser that supports a completely free stack has no need for plugins. Or add-ons that handle content that the browser doesn't. So let Mozilla put their principals where their mouth is and start by banning those things.
</p><p>
<i>What your suggestion is offering is a technical solution to the problem which unfortunately conflicts with their principle and thus they can't go down the road. I see Mozilla people's point and I agree with them. It's reasonable, logical and consistent. But I also understand there are a lot of people who read slashdot who just don't seem to understand what the point of freedom is.</i>
</p><p>
Their principle is already conflicted by things their browser supports. Many sites contain an embedded swf and Mozilla dutifully instantiates a proprietary component to play it. Hell, their browser will even HELP the user get Adobe Flash Player if it encounters sites that contain SWFs. It's hard to imagine how their principles could be compromised any more if they're taking some kind of stance on this particular point.
</p><p>
Of course I realise why their principles take a backseat here. IMO it's simply pragmatic to support the proprietary stuff while pushing HTML standards which do away with them. But a video tag that only supports ogg really isn't much use at all. Sites aren't going to code against that tag when it doesn't support the INDUSTRY STANDARD codec. Some sites might use it but the majority will carry on using proprietary plugins by Adobe and Microsoft to play their content or advise users to use Google who do supply a browser which plays videos. Either way open standards and Mozilla lose.
</p><p>
It simply makes no sense for Mozilla to take this stance. By all means ship with the ogg player. After all, the power of the default can be never be underestimated. But not allowing other codecs is flat out stupid and ultimately self defeating. Most modern operating systems either contain an h264 player, or can obtain them. In many parts of the world, it's even free and legal to use h264. Denying a popular industry standard video format and denying providing an API so that others can support it is cutting off the nose to spite the face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't do that as they explain in the blog entry a ) that most windows users do n't have an H264 codec and b ) It 's pissing on their principles ( my words , not theirs ) .
And I see their point .
The Mozilla people want to be able to browse the internet with a completely free stack .
That is their point : a completely free stack .
A browser that supports a completely free stack has no need for plugins .
Or add-ons that handle content that the browser does n't .
So let Mozilla put their principals where their mouth is and start by banning those things .
What your suggestion is offering is a technical solution to the problem which unfortunately conflicts with their principle and thus they ca n't go down the road .
I see Mozilla people 's point and I agree with them .
It 's reasonable , logical and consistent .
But I also understand there are a lot of people who read slashdot who just do n't seem to understand what the point of freedom is .
Their principle is already conflicted by things their browser supports .
Many sites contain an embedded swf and Mozilla dutifully instantiates a proprietary component to play it .
Hell , their browser will even HELP the user get Adobe Flash Player if it encounters sites that contain SWFs .
It 's hard to imagine how their principles could be compromised any more if they 're taking some kind of stance on this particular point .
Of course I realise why their principles take a backseat here .
IMO it 's simply pragmatic to support the proprietary stuff while pushing HTML standards which do away with them .
But a video tag that only supports ogg really is n't much use at all .
Sites are n't going to code against that tag when it does n't support the INDUSTRY STANDARD codec .
Some sites might use it but the majority will carry on using proprietary plugins by Adobe and Microsoft to play their content or advise users to use Google who do supply a browser which plays videos .
Either way open standards and Mozilla lose .
It simply makes no sense for Mozilla to take this stance .
By all means ship with the ogg player .
After all , the power of the default can be never be underestimated .
But not allowing other codecs is flat out stupid and ultimately self defeating .
Most modern operating systems either contain an h264 player , or can obtain them .
In many parts of the world , it 's even free and legal to use h264 .
Denying a popular industry standard video format and denying providing an API so that others can support it is cutting off the nose to spite the face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't do that as they explain in the blog entry a) that most windows users don't have an H264 codec and b) It's pissing on their principles (my words, not theirs).
And I see their point.
The Mozilla people want to be able to browse the internet with a completely free stack.
That is their point: a completely free stack.
A browser that supports a completely free stack has no need for plugins.
Or add-ons that handle content that the browser doesn't.
So let Mozilla put their principals where their mouth is and start by banning those things.
What your suggestion is offering is a technical solution to the problem which unfortunately conflicts with their principle and thus they can't go down the road.
I see Mozilla people's point and I agree with them.
It's reasonable, logical and consistent.
But I also understand there are a lot of people who read slashdot who just don't seem to understand what the point of freedom is.
Their principle is already conflicted by things their browser supports.
Many sites contain an embedded swf and Mozilla dutifully instantiates a proprietary component to play it.
Hell, their browser will even HELP the user get Adobe Flash Player if it encounters sites that contain SWFs.
It's hard to imagine how their principles could be compromised any more if they're taking some kind of stance on this particular point.
Of course I realise why their principles take a backseat here.
IMO it's simply pragmatic to support the proprietary stuff while pushing HTML standards which do away with them.
But a video tag that only supports ogg really isn't much use at all.
Sites aren't going to code against that tag when it doesn't support the INDUSTRY STANDARD codec.
Some sites might use it but the majority will carry on using proprietary plugins by Adobe and Microsoft to play their content or advise users to use Google who do supply a browser which plays videos.
Either way open standards and Mozilla lose.
It simply makes no sense for Mozilla to take this stance.
By all means ship with the ogg player.
After all, the power of the default can be never be underestimated.
But not allowing other codecs is flat out stupid and ultimately self defeating.
Most modern operating systems either contain an h264 player, or can obtain them.
In many parts of the world, it's even free and legal to use h264.
Denying a popular industry standard video format and denying providing an API so that others can support it is cutting off the nose to spite the face.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30888204</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1264422900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Mark Shuttleworth's vision of Ubuntu is that "it just works".</i></p><p>Hahahahahahahahahaha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark Shuttleworth 's vision of Ubuntu is that " it just works " .Hahahahahahahahahaha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark Shuttleworth's vision of Ubuntu is that "it just works".Hahahahahahahahahaha!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879928</id>
	<title>Dirac and Snow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the state of Dirac and Snow codecs.  They're never brought up in these discussions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the state of Dirac and Snow codecs .
They 're never brought up in these discussions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the state of Dirac and Snow codecs.
They're never brought up in these discussions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30891610</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please just start promoting Dirac ?</title>
	<author>atilla filiz</author>
	<datestamp>1264440360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because major players don't want to use royalty-free codecs? Maybe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because major players do n't want to use royalty-free codecs ?
Maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because major players don't want to use royalty-free codecs?
Maybe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879606</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IP in software can protect the little guy as much as the big corporations.  While it may not work in Mozilla's favor here, I feel good knowing if I ever have a good, original software/algorithmic idea I can protect it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's time Americans stopped thinking of themselves as the centre of world technology. If Mozilla is determined to follow US law only and therefore not implement H.264 because it's encumbered with license fees there due to dumb local laws, then</p></div><p>Seeing that Mozilla's headquarters are in the U.S. I imagine they would like to continue providing a browser to the U.S.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US.</p></div><p>And Japan and South Korea to name a few more.  But, what do they have to do with technology?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IP in software can protect the little guy as much as the big corporations .
While it may not work in Mozilla 's favor here , I feel good knowing if I ever have a good , original software/algorithmic idea I can protect it.It 's time Americans stopped thinking of themselves as the centre of world technology .
If Mozilla is determined to follow US law only and therefore not implement H.264 because it 's encumbered with license fees there due to dumb local laws , thenSeeing that Mozilla 's headquarters are in the U.S. I imagine they would like to continue providing a browser to the U.S.H.264 is a free and open standard , just not in the US.And Japan and South Korea to name a few more .
But , what do they have to do with technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP in software can protect the little guy as much as the big corporations.
While it may not work in Mozilla's favor here, I feel good knowing if I ever have a good, original software/algorithmic idea I can protect it.It's time Americans stopped thinking of themselves as the centre of world technology.
If Mozilla is determined to follow US law only and therefore not implement H.264 because it's encumbered with license fees there due to dumb local laws, thenSeeing that Mozilla's headquarters are in the U.S. I imagine they would like to continue providing a browser to the U.S.H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US.And Japan and South Korea to name a few more.
But, what do they have to do with technology?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879822</id>
	<title>What we REALLY need is...</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1264358880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YouTube et al to switch to Ogg instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YouTube et al to switch to Ogg instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YouTube et al to switch to Ogg instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878708</id>
	<title>Soo...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264352100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forgive me for probably being completely retarded in the matter here, but can't applications like VLC and Handbrake decode H.264? How do they handle the these copyright things, and couldn't Mozilla do something similar with Firefox?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgive me for probably being completely retarded in the matter here , but ca n't applications like VLC and Handbrake decode H.264 ?
How do they handle the these copyright things , and could n't Mozilla do something similar with Firefox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgive me for probably being completely retarded in the matter here, but can't applications like VLC and Handbrake decode H.264?
How do they handle the these copyright things, and couldn't Mozilla do something similar with Firefox?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880384</id>
	<title>Re:How to silently kill firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264361460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what in what order do we do these?  What order!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what in what order do we do these ?
What order ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what in what order do we do these?
What order!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882328</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PCI documentation you can't get hold of legaly/easily without been a member of the pci group with the ossociated 3k fee etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PCI documentation you ca n't get hold of legaly/easily without been a member of the pci group with the ossociated 3k fee etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PCI documentation you can't get hold of legaly/easily without been a member of the pci group with the ossociated 3k fee etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880768</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Video sites will do what's in their interests; However, they cannot ignore Opera and Mozilla's plight. Mozilla have given valid reasons why they can't implement it. They aren't being idealistic, they're being realistic.</p><p>Even if h.264 became the de facto standard, ignoring 30\% of browsers is not an option. Should <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo" title="dailymotion.com" rel="nofollow">Dailymotion</a> [dailymotion.com] or any other video site support ogv, and YouTube/Video support only 10\% of browsers, then what Microsoft does will be decisive. Don't say the battle's over before it's started.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Video sites will do what 's in their interests ; However , they can not ignore Opera and Mozilla 's plight .
Mozilla have given valid reasons why they ca n't implement it .
They are n't being idealistic , they 're being realistic.Even if h.264 became the de facto standard , ignoring 30 \ % of browsers is not an option .
Should Dailymotion [ dailymotion.com ] or any other video site support ogv , and YouTube/Video support only 10 \ % of browsers , then what Microsoft does will be decisive .
Do n't say the battle 's over before it 's started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video sites will do what's in their interests; However, they cannot ignore Opera and Mozilla's plight.
Mozilla have given valid reasons why they can't implement it.
They aren't being idealistic, they're being realistic.Even if h.264 became the de facto standard, ignoring 30\% of browsers is not an option.
Should Dailymotion [dailymotion.com] or any other video site support ogv, and YouTube/Video support only 10\% of browsers, then what Microsoft does will be decisive.
Don't say the battle's over before it's started.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881634</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264324560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the install disc would require onboard GPS so that it won't install on a machine on U.S. soil</p></div><p>Now that is a retarded idea. It's like forcing every DVD player manufacturer on the planet to integrate a chip, whose only purpose would be to ensure that DVDs from other countries could not be played... oh, wait...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the install disc would require onboard GPS so that it wo n't install on a machine on U.S. soilNow that is a retarded idea .
It 's like forcing every DVD player manufacturer on the planet to integrate a chip , whose only purpose would be to ensure that DVDs from other countries could not be played... oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the install disc would require onboard GPS so that it won't install on a machine on U.S. soilNow that is a retarded idea.
It's like forcing every DVD player manufacturer on the planet to integrate a chip, whose only purpose would be to ensure that DVDs from other countries could not be played... oh, wait...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882406</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1264329240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think that if Mozilla would sit down with MPEG-LA they could get a really good license (i.e. no cost)</p></div></blockquote><p>
Being able to issue licenses means they can be revoked.  If you look at the bigger picture you can see by licensing the format of video (if it does become ubiquitous through out) there is control over all video, kinda like that saying about eggs and baskets.  When you talk about large companies you talk about power more than money, it would be more rewarding for a company to be able to disable a license (DRM??) to silence someone since it will bring them closer to those who have more power then themselves.  Right now not many end users are aware or even care what codec the video they are watching was encoded in but as cameras become more powerful and cheaper they will have more power to disrupt communications, absolute power and all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that if Mozilla would sit down with MPEG-LA they could get a really good license ( i.e .
no cost ) Being able to issue licenses means they can be revoked .
If you look at the bigger picture you can see by licensing the format of video ( if it does become ubiquitous through out ) there is control over all video , kinda like that saying about eggs and baskets .
When you talk about large companies you talk about power more than money , it would be more rewarding for a company to be able to disable a license ( DRM ? ?
) to silence someone since it will bring them closer to those who have more power then themselves .
Right now not many end users are aware or even care what codec the video they are watching was encoded in but as cameras become more powerful and cheaper they will have more power to disrupt communications , absolute power and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that if Mozilla would sit down with MPEG-LA they could get a really good license (i.e.
no cost)
Being able to issue licenses means they can be revoked.
If you look at the bigger picture you can see by licensing the format of video (if it does become ubiquitous through out) there is control over all video, kinda like that saying about eggs and baskets.
When you talk about large companies you talk about power more than money, it would be more rewarding for a company to be able to disable a license (DRM??
) to silence someone since it will bring them closer to those who have more power then themselves.
Right now not many end users are aware or even care what codec the video they are watching was encoded in but as cameras become more powerful and cheaper they will have more power to disrupt communications, absolute power and all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879492</id>
	<title>Re:Just open up the video architecture</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1264356900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had you read the article, you'd find your point: <i>"Everyone should be able to browse the Web with a free software stack without having to jump through arcane hoops to download and install software"</i></p><p>Just don't think the Web should rely on h.264</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had you read the article , you 'd find your point : " Everyone should be able to browse the Web with a free software stack without having to jump through arcane hoops to download and install software " Just do n't think the Web should rely on h.264</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had you read the article, you'd find your point: "Everyone should be able to browse the Web with a free software stack without having to jump through arcane hoops to download and install software"Just don't think the Web should rely on h.264</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30895252</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1264412040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash actually does On2 VP6 or H.264, these days. The older SD video online is VP6 in a Flash container.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash actually does On2 VP6 or H.264 , these days .
The older SD video online is VP6 in a Flash container .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash actually does On2 VP6 or H.264, these days.
The older SD video online is VP6 in a Flash container.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883122</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1264333800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US.</p></div></blockquote><p>Umm, heh. You do realize that the Mozilla Corporation is a U.S. company, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>H.264 is a free and open standard , just not in the US.Umm , heh .
You do realize that the Mozilla Corporation is a U.S. company , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US.Umm, heh.
You do realize that the Mozilla Corporation is a U.S. company, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882210</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>humina</author>
	<datestamp>1264328160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's only because they have decided that they should try to force Theora on people that they are rejecting that solution.</p></div><p>You can still install a plugin to view H2.64 video in firefox.  You are not being prevented from that option, Mozilla is just not forking over the licensing fees and having it available by default.</p><p>
You use of the word forced is hilarious.  It is like saying that the first amendment to the US constitution forces free speech on its citizens or that a free neighborhood bbq forces food into people's mouths.  Nobody is being forced to do anything. Mozilla decided they didn't want to promote a licence that requires a fee (one that can change and is quite substantial).  If you want to use it, you are free to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only because they have decided that they should try to force Theora on people that they are rejecting that solution.You can still install a plugin to view H2.64 video in firefox .
You are not being prevented from that option , Mozilla is just not forking over the licensing fees and having it available by default .
You use of the word forced is hilarious .
It is like saying that the first amendment to the US constitution forces free speech on its citizens or that a free neighborhood bbq forces food into people 's mouths .
Nobody is being forced to do anything .
Mozilla decided they did n't want to promote a licence that requires a fee ( one that can change and is quite substantial ) .
If you want to use it , you are free to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only because they have decided that they should try to force Theora on people that they are rejecting that solution.You can still install a plugin to view H2.64 video in firefox.
You are not being prevented from that option, Mozilla is just not forking over the licensing fees and having it available by default.
You use of the word forced is hilarious.
It is like saying that the first amendment to the US constitution forces free speech on its citizens or that a free neighborhood bbq forces food into people's mouths.
Nobody is being forced to do anything.
Mozilla decided they didn't want to promote a licence that requires a fee (one that can change and is quite substantial).
If you want to use it, you are free to do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879230</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1264355100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is <em>not</em> impossible for Mozilla to use h.264. They have several options for how to use it. None are perfect, but it is not impossible. That would include using OS libraries to play h.264, and using a plugin system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not impossible for Mozilla to use h.264 .
They have several options for how to use it .
None are perfect , but it is not impossible .
That would include using OS libraries to play h.264 , and using a plugin system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not impossible for Mozilla to use h.264.
They have several options for how to use it.
None are perfect, but it is not impossible.
That would include using OS libraries to play h.264, and using a plugin system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878824</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1264352880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done.</p></div><p>Or simply throw a decoder in, and block the Mozilla website to any IP originating from the US. We get shiny new codec, Mozilla doesn't violate the GPL by throwing in additional demands upon their users, and the US goes further down the drain for being the legislative hell-hole that it is, win for all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done.Or simply throw a decoder in , and block the Mozilla website to any IP originating from the US .
We get shiny new codec , Mozilla does n't violate the GPL by throwing in additional demands upon their users , and the US goes further down the drain for being the legislative hell-hole that it is , win for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done.Or simply throw a decoder in, and block the Mozilla website to any IP originating from the US.
We get shiny new codec, Mozilla doesn't violate the GPL by throwing in additional demands upon their users, and the US goes further down the drain for being the legislative hell-hole that it is, win for all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108</id>
	<title>Mozilla H.264 Fees = $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>CritterNYC</author>
	<datestamp>1264360260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Mozilla were bundling H.264 support right now, it would be closed source (so forget about seeing it in Ubuntu by default) and it would cost them $5,000,000 this year.  Next year, the fee will be even higher.  So, Mozilla would have to allot 6\% of their revenue (revenue, not profit) to supporting this one proprietary video codec.</p><p>H.264 is only supported by Chrome and Safari (less than 10\% of those online).  Let's keep it that way and keep the barrier for entrance into the browser market from reaching insane proportions.  Otherwise we'll be left with fewer choices in the browser wars since lots of people can't pay $0.20 per unit for a product they give away for free.  Mozilla and Opera certainly can't.  But for Google and Aple, supporting H.264 in their browsers is free since they already hit the $5,000,000 cap this year (Google due to all the encoding and streaming of it, Apple due to licensing it for iPods/iTunes).</p><p>So, it's EASY for Apple and Google to support it since it's free and they already ship closed source products (Safari is closed source even though the underling webkit is open, Chrome is closed source even though the underlying Chromium bits are open).  Mozilla would have to pay a ton of cash (and increasing) and add closed source bits to Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Mozilla were bundling H.264 support right now , it would be closed source ( so forget about seeing it in Ubuntu by default ) and it would cost them $ 5,000,000 this year .
Next year , the fee will be even higher .
So , Mozilla would have to allot 6 \ % of their revenue ( revenue , not profit ) to supporting this one proprietary video codec.H.264 is only supported by Chrome and Safari ( less than 10 \ % of those online ) .
Let 's keep it that way and keep the barrier for entrance into the browser market from reaching insane proportions .
Otherwise we 'll be left with fewer choices in the browser wars since lots of people ca n't pay $ 0.20 per unit for a product they give away for free .
Mozilla and Opera certainly ca n't .
But for Google and Aple , supporting H.264 in their browsers is free since they already hit the $ 5,000,000 cap this year ( Google due to all the encoding and streaming of it , Apple due to licensing it for iPods/iTunes ) .So , it 's EASY for Apple and Google to support it since it 's free and they already ship closed source products ( Safari is closed source even though the underling webkit is open , Chrome is closed source even though the underlying Chromium bits are open ) .
Mozilla would have to pay a ton of cash ( and increasing ) and add closed source bits to Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Mozilla were bundling H.264 support right now, it would be closed source (so forget about seeing it in Ubuntu by default) and it would cost them $5,000,000 this year.
Next year, the fee will be even higher.
So, Mozilla would have to allot 6\% of their revenue (revenue, not profit) to supporting this one proprietary video codec.H.264 is only supported by Chrome and Safari (less than 10\% of those online).
Let's keep it that way and keep the barrier for entrance into the browser market from reaching insane proportions.
Otherwise we'll be left with fewer choices in the browser wars since lots of people can't pay $0.20 per unit for a product they give away for free.
Mozilla and Opera certainly can't.
But for Google and Aple, supporting H.264 in their browsers is free since they already hit the $5,000,000 cap this year (Google due to all the encoding and streaming of it, Apple due to licensing it for iPods/iTunes).So, it's EASY for Apple and Google to support it since it's free and they already ship closed source products (Safari is closed source even though the underling webkit is open, Chrome is closed source even though the underlying Chromium bits are open).
Mozilla would have to pay a ton of cash (and increasing) and add closed source bits to Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30886734</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla H.264 Fees = $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264362180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Safari is closed source even though the underling webkit is open, Chrome is closed source even though the underlying <i>webkit</i> bits are open</p></div><p>
FTFY
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Safari is closed source even though the underling webkit is open , Chrome is closed source even though the underlying webkit bits are open FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Safari is closed source even though the underling webkit is open, Chrome is closed source even though the underlying webkit bits are open
FTFY

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30913246</id>
	<title>its worse: 2028, not 2017</title>
	<author>jrincayc</author>
	<datestamp>1264523100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its worse.  You would have to wait until 2028 for the US MPEG-LA H.264 patents to expire.</p><p><a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020737.html" title="whatwg.org" rel="nofollow">http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020737.html</a> [whatwg.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its worse .
You would have to wait until 2028 for the US MPEG-LA H.264 patents to expire.http : //lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020737.html [ whatwg.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its worse.
You would have to wait until 2028 for the US MPEG-LA H.264 patents to expire.http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020737.html [whatwg.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883236</id>
	<title>Re:This is a losing strategy</title>
	<author>Wesley Felter</author>
	<datestamp>1264334520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>pretty much every format universal on the Internet today, got that way because the player/viewer was offered free of charge.</p></div><p>Not really; MPEG-4 (aka "DivX") is patented and requires royalties; you just didn't notice because either someone paid the royalties for you or you're infringing the patents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>pretty much every format universal on the Internet today , got that way because the player/viewer was offered free of charge.Not really ; MPEG-4 ( aka " DivX " ) is patented and requires royalties ; you just did n't notice because either someone paid the royalties for you or you 're infringing the patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pretty much every format universal on the Internet today, got that way because the player/viewer was offered free of charge.Not really; MPEG-4 (aka "DivX") is patented and requires royalties; you just didn't notice because either someone paid the royalties for you or you're infringing the patents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883246</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264334580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read the links in the summary?  It's not because they are "trying to force Theora on people", it's because it would be a nightmare.</p><p>Horrible cross-platform implementation issues aside, you end up turning platform-specific problems with video playback (bad configuration, missing, broken or outdated codecs) into Firefox problems.  That might be fine for you, but your grandma isn't going to want to debug and maintain that stuff just to watch videos of break-dancing kittens.  You also expose security bugs in DirectShow filters or Quicktime to the web, and neither of those are exactly unheard of.</p><p>If HTML5 video doesn't provide the user with an experience that's as good as or better than Flash, nobody is going to bother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read the links in the summary ?
It 's not because they are " trying to force Theora on people " , it 's because it would be a nightmare.Horrible cross-platform implementation issues aside , you end up turning platform-specific problems with video playback ( bad configuration , missing , broken or outdated codecs ) into Firefox problems .
That might be fine for you , but your grandma is n't going to want to debug and maintain that stuff just to watch videos of break-dancing kittens .
You also expose security bugs in DirectShow filters or Quicktime to the web , and neither of those are exactly unheard of.If HTML5 video does n't provide the user with an experience that 's as good as or better than Flash , nobody is going to bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read the links in the summary?
It's not because they are "trying to force Theora on people", it's because it would be a nightmare.Horrible cross-platform implementation issues aside, you end up turning platform-specific problems with video playback (bad configuration, missing, broken or outdated codecs) into Firefox problems.
That might be fine for you, but your grandma isn't going to want to debug and maintain that stuff just to watch videos of break-dancing kittens.
You also expose security bugs in DirectShow filters or Quicktime to the web, and neither of those are exactly unheard of.If HTML5 video doesn't provide the user with an experience that's as good as or better than Flash, nobody is going to bother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879708</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>dogzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1264358280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or Shuttleworth could just switch to a Webkit browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or Shuttleworth could just switch to a Webkit browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or Shuttleworth could just switch to a Webkit browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883642</id>
	<title>Do you have any idea at all of how much money?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264336920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you even realize how steep the licensing fees are for MPEG?</p><p>Chris Blizzard was on record a while ago saying that if Mozilla wanted to ship mp3 support in FF, the licensing fees would be somewhere over $500,000 *a day*.  h.264 is considerably more expensive.  Millions a day.  Mozilla would be broke in under a week.</p><p>The MPEG-LA had a little slideshow not long ago talking about how successful it's been.  One of the slides said proudly, I kid you not, that in 2008, MPEG-LA took in $66.46 of royalty fees for every man, woman and child ON THE PLANET for MPEG-2 ALONE.</p><p>Oh yeah huurr hurr its all about greasy hippies and freedom.  No, its about COLD HARD CASH.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you even realize how steep the licensing fees are for MPEG ? Chris Blizzard was on record a while ago saying that if Mozilla wanted to ship mp3 support in FF , the licensing fees would be somewhere over $ 500,000 * a day * .
h.264 is considerably more expensive .
Millions a day .
Mozilla would be broke in under a week.The MPEG-LA had a little slideshow not long ago talking about how successful it 's been .
One of the slides said proudly , I kid you not , that in 2008 , MPEG-LA took in $ 66.46 of royalty fees for every man , woman and child ON THE PLANET for MPEG-2 ALONE.Oh yeah huurr hurr its all about greasy hippies and freedom .
No , its about COLD HARD CASH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you even realize how steep the licensing fees are for MPEG?Chris Blizzard was on record a while ago saying that if Mozilla wanted to ship mp3 support in FF, the licensing fees would be somewhere over $500,000 *a day*.
h.264 is considerably more expensive.
Millions a day.
Mozilla would be broke in under a week.The MPEG-LA had a little slideshow not long ago talking about how successful it's been.
One of the slides said proudly, I kid you not, that in 2008, MPEG-LA took in $66.46 of royalty fees for every man, woman and child ON THE PLANET for MPEG-2 ALONE.Oh yeah huurr hurr its all about greasy hippies and freedom.
No, its about COLD HARD CASH.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882244</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>javabsp</author>
	<datestamp>1264328400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, time for everyone to just switch to IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , time for everyone to just switch to IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, time for everyone to just switch to IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30909084</id>
	<title>Re:Greed will fix it</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1264496940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Essentially the usual short-sighted greed over quarterly profits amongst companies will cause them to push the situation until it breaks.</p></div></blockquote><p>The MPEG-LA has been around for over a decade.  How many years are you planning on?</p><blockquote><div><p>It may take a few years but eventually the very greed that made a patent encumbered format the de-facto standard is the same greed that will kill it.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's NOT greed that drives adoption of the technically superior format.  Self-interest, OTOH, is a desirable trail, which resulted in many good technical standard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Essentially the usual short-sighted greed over quarterly profits amongst companies will cause them to push the situation until it breaks.The MPEG-LA has been around for over a decade .
How many years are you planning on ? It may take a few years but eventually the very greed that made a patent encumbered format the de-facto standard is the same greed that will kill it.It 's NOT greed that drives adoption of the technically superior format .
Self-interest , OTOH , is a desirable trail , which resulted in many good technical standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Essentially the usual short-sighted greed over quarterly profits amongst companies will cause them to push the situation until it breaks.The MPEG-LA has been around for over a decade.
How many years are you planning on?It may take a few years but eventually the very greed that made a patent encumbered format the de-facto standard is the same greed that will kill it.It's NOT greed that drives adoption of the technically superior format.
Self-interest, OTOH, is a desirable trail, which resulted in many good technical standard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883518</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Baloo Uriza</author>
	<datestamp>1264336260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never mind that licensing is the overriding concern since that's the one that actually costs freedom and money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never mind that licensing is the overriding concern since that 's the one that actually costs freedom and money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never mind that licensing is the overriding concern since that's the one that actually costs freedom and money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883550</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>supernova\_hq</author>
	<datestamp>1264336500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL, Americans...
<br> <br>
So a site is hosted/run from the US, but I doubt more than half the visitors (audience) is American.
<br> <br>
As for it not "just working" in the us being that important, Ubuntu is controlled in England and run with African ethics, good luck getting your oh-so-important US problems involved.
<br> <br>
I'm also pretty sure that while the US does represent a rather large number of Ubuntu users, China, Africa and Europe represent even more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL , Americans.. . So a site is hosted/run from the US , but I doubt more than half the visitors ( audience ) is American .
As for it not " just working " in the us being that important , Ubuntu is controlled in England and run with African ethics , good luck getting your oh-so-important US problems involved .
I 'm also pretty sure that while the US does represent a rather large number of Ubuntu users , China , Africa and Europe represent even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL, Americans...
 
So a site is hosted/run from the US, but I doubt more than half the visitors (audience) is American.
As for it not "just working" in the us being that important, Ubuntu is controlled in England and run with African ethics, good luck getting your oh-so-important US problems involved.
I'm also pretty sure that while the US does represent a rather large number of Ubuntu users, China, Africa and Europe represent even more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30887218</id>
	<title>Re:Just give up your principles and compromize</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1264410420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a) that most windows users don't have an H264 codec</p></div><p>Great, because some people do not have the codec I will have to continue to use flash on Youtube. Maybe I could download some plugin that allowed me to watch h264 videos because I have the codec. Maybe I should tell everybody how easy it is to download HD TV shows using torrents. Then more people will have the codec.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>b) It's pissing on their principles (my words, not theirs)</p></div><p>Too bad.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But I also understand there are a lot of people who read slashdot who just don't seem to understand what the point of freedom is.</p></div><p>Well, I admit I don't. I always though that freedom meant that I could do whatever I wanted (within reason of course). That should include being able to watch h264 videos on Firefox.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So suppose you're in the following scenario: you get to recieve a pile of money in exchange for a corporation to cut off your right leg</p></div><p>Depends n the amount of money. If the amount of money is enough to build a fully functional artificial leg and then there would still be enough for me to never have to work again I'd probably do it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What if it was only a few toes say of one of your siblings, or a living parent, or one of your children if you have any?</p></div><p>I'd ask the person h(im|er)self.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>From my perspective, you have no principles except possibly the pursuit of money which as a goal I just don't see much point</p></div><p>So, you would refuse to sell your leg for any amount of money. You continue to live and work as usual and can be proud and tell everybody "Well, you see, I was offered $XYZ, but I refused, I still have my leg and can continue to enjoy living in fear of losing my job", well, until you get in an accident in which you lose that leg anyway (or maybe you don't).</p><p>From where I see it, this decision by Mozilla actually is infringing on my freedom. I want to be able to watch videos in sites that use h.264 codec. Almost everything else uses that codec (anime, HD TV shows, youtube) and a lot of devices support it (PCs, bluray players, my cell phone). So why use the codec that is only supported on PCs and is inferior in quality? OK, you like the codec because of legal reasons, I understand that Mozilla cannot distribute h.264 codec for free etc. OK. So make it possible to write a plugin with that codec.</p><p>Or even better, use the codecs that are in the PC already. Ir that particular user does not have h264 codec, the site can guide him to download it or if he can't <b>it certainly won't be worse than it is now, where I can't play the videos even if my PC has the codec</b>.</p><p>Going back to your analogy about cutting off a leg. If you respect freedom, than you have to respect my choice to sell my leg (or my kidney, or some of my blood), otherwise your idea of freedom becomes something like "Do whatever you want as long as I approve it". And this is why I can't understand the laws that prohibit the sale of non vital organs. If I can't sell it, you aren't getting it for free either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) that most windows users do n't have an H264 codecGreat , because some people do not have the codec I will have to continue to use flash on Youtube .
Maybe I could download some plugin that allowed me to watch h264 videos because I have the codec .
Maybe I should tell everybody how easy it is to download HD TV shows using torrents .
Then more people will have the codec.b ) It 's pissing on their principles ( my words , not theirs ) Too bad.But I also understand there are a lot of people who read slashdot who just do n't seem to understand what the point of freedom is.Well , I admit I do n't .
I always though that freedom meant that I could do whatever I wanted ( within reason of course ) .
That should include being able to watch h264 videos on Firefox.So suppose you 're in the following scenario : you get to recieve a pile of money in exchange for a corporation to cut off your right legDepends n the amount of money .
If the amount of money is enough to build a fully functional artificial leg and then there would still be enough for me to never have to work again I 'd probably do it.What if it was only a few toes say of one of your siblings , or a living parent , or one of your children if you have any ? I 'd ask the person h ( im | er ) self.From my perspective , you have no principles except possibly the pursuit of money which as a goal I just do n't see much pointSo , you would refuse to sell your leg for any amount of money .
You continue to live and work as usual and can be proud and tell everybody " Well , you see , I was offered $ XYZ , but I refused , I still have my leg and can continue to enjoy living in fear of losing my job " , well , until you get in an accident in which you lose that leg anyway ( or maybe you do n't ) .From where I see it , this decision by Mozilla actually is infringing on my freedom .
I want to be able to watch videos in sites that use h.264 codec .
Almost everything else uses that codec ( anime , HD TV shows , youtube ) and a lot of devices support it ( PCs , bluray players , my cell phone ) .
So why use the codec that is only supported on PCs and is inferior in quality ?
OK , you like the codec because of legal reasons , I understand that Mozilla can not distribute h.264 codec for free etc .
OK. So make it possible to write a plugin with that codec.Or even better , use the codecs that are in the PC already .
Ir that particular user does not have h264 codec , the site can guide him to download it or if he ca n't it certainly wo n't be worse than it is now , where I ca n't play the videos even if my PC has the codec.Going back to your analogy about cutting off a leg .
If you respect freedom , than you have to respect my choice to sell my leg ( or my kidney , or some of my blood ) , otherwise your idea of freedom becomes something like " Do whatever you want as long as I approve it " .
And this is why I ca n't understand the laws that prohibit the sale of non vital organs .
If I ca n't sell it , you are n't getting it for free either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) that most windows users don't have an H264 codecGreat, because some people do not have the codec I will have to continue to use flash on Youtube.
Maybe I could download some plugin that allowed me to watch h264 videos because I have the codec.
Maybe I should tell everybody how easy it is to download HD TV shows using torrents.
Then more people will have the codec.b) It's pissing on their principles (my words, not theirs)Too bad.But I also understand there are a lot of people who read slashdot who just don't seem to understand what the point of freedom is.Well, I admit I don't.
I always though that freedom meant that I could do whatever I wanted (within reason of course).
That should include being able to watch h264 videos on Firefox.So suppose you're in the following scenario: you get to recieve a pile of money in exchange for a corporation to cut off your right legDepends n the amount of money.
If the amount of money is enough to build a fully functional artificial leg and then there would still be enough for me to never have to work again I'd probably do it.What if it was only a few toes say of one of your siblings, or a living parent, or one of your children if you have any?I'd ask the person h(im|er)self.From my perspective, you have no principles except possibly the pursuit of money which as a goal I just don't see much pointSo, you would refuse to sell your leg for any amount of money.
You continue to live and work as usual and can be proud and tell everybody "Well, you see, I was offered $XYZ, but I refused, I still have my leg and can continue to enjoy living in fear of losing my job", well, until you get in an accident in which you lose that leg anyway (or maybe you don't).From where I see it, this decision by Mozilla actually is infringing on my freedom.
I want to be able to watch videos in sites that use h.264 codec.
Almost everything else uses that codec (anime, HD TV shows, youtube) and a lot of devices support it (PCs, bluray players, my cell phone).
So why use the codec that is only supported on PCs and is inferior in quality?
OK, you like the codec because of legal reasons, I understand that Mozilla cannot distribute h.264 codec for free etc.
OK. So make it possible to write a plugin with that codec.Or even better, use the codecs that are in the PC already.
Ir that particular user does not have h264 codec, the site can guide him to download it or if he can't it certainly won't be worse than it is now, where I can't play the videos even if my PC has the codec.Going back to your analogy about cutting off a leg.
If you respect freedom, than you have to respect my choice to sell my leg (or my kidney, or some of my blood), otherwise your idea of freedom becomes something like "Do whatever you want as long as I approve it".
And this is why I can't understand the laws that prohibit the sale of non vital organs.
If I can't sell it, you aren't getting it for free either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878646</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264351740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think anyone's ignoring those facts.  In particular, no one is under the illusion that ogg is a suitable replacement for h.264 in all cases.  The hope is that a better codec than either will appear with more suitable licensing terms; in the meantime a premature standardization on h.264 would hurt the chances of that codec being adopted when it appears, no?</p><p>On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Wikipedia, say, has no plans to put its video in H.264 (so Safari, say, can't very well view it).</p><p>&gt; Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done.</p><p>As a side note, Apple and Google did not have to pay for a license separately here.  They already had the licenses.</p><p>&gt; Otherwise, watch Chrome really destroy Firefox</p><p>If that were to start happening (and it's nowhere close yet), the calculation might have to change, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anyone 's ignoring those facts .
In particular , no one is under the illusion that ogg is a suitable replacement for h.264 in all cases .
The hope is that a better codec than either will appear with more suitable licensing terms ; in the meantime a premature standardization on h.264 would hurt the chances of that codec being adopted when it appears , no ? On the other hand , you seem to be ignoring the fact that Wikipedia , say , has no plans to put its video in H.264 ( so Safari , say , ca n't very well view it ) . &gt; Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done.As a side note , Apple and Google did not have to pay for a license separately here .
They already had the licenses. &gt; Otherwise , watch Chrome really destroy FirefoxIf that were to start happening ( and it 's nowhere close yet ) , the calculation might have to change , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anyone's ignoring those facts.
In particular, no one is under the illusion that ogg is a suitable replacement for h.264 in all cases.
The hope is that a better codec than either will appear with more suitable licensing terms; in the meantime a premature standardization on h.264 would hurt the chances of that codec being adopted when it appears, no?On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Wikipedia, say, has no plans to put its video in H.264 (so Safari, say, can't very well view it).&gt; Time for Mozilla to face reality and pay up the license as Apple and Google have done.As a side note, Apple and Google did not have to pay for a license separately here.
They already had the licenses.&gt; Otherwise, watch Chrome really destroy FirefoxIf that were to start happening (and it's nowhere close yet), the calculation might have to change, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881020</id>
	<title>Lies meet fud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264364520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DailyMotion uses Theora.  Wikipedia uses Theora.</p><p>Flash based Video *is* H.264 these days, you're comparing unlike things.  Flash can be used as an alternative for the  tag.  Codecs are an independent issue.</p><p>The "hardware accelerated" point is mostly spurious.  No one bothered adding special hardware for older codecs than H.264 because older codecs didn't have the utterly insane cpu requirements.  The Theora decoder is several times faster than H.264 decoders.  Yes, Theora doesn't get the same quality per bitrate that H.264 gets but thats not due to any flaws in Theora: Theora is optimized for lower cpu usage instead.  There is no free lunch: Every codec must balance bitrate, quality, cpu usage, licensing/patents, and other factors.  Theora strikes a very different balance than H.264. You might try to argue that CPUs are fast enough that H.264's addition usage is irrelevant, but you (and everyone elses) cries for hardware acceleration put the lie to that claim.</p><p>Moreover,  if you're defining "hardware accelerated" broadly enough that you can say "nearly every platform, desktop and mobile" or even just "most desktops" then you must only be talking about hardware colorspace conversion, which works equally well for Theora.  On many platforms, "hardware acceleration" means little more than using the specialized media instructions most of which apply equally to Theora and H.264.  On some smartphone platforms (like palm-pre, android devices, nokia table) it means using a dedicated DSP, and there is already a port there.   My stupid little jailbroken Iphone decodes full screen theora at about 100fps using <a href="http://wss.co.uk/pinknoise/theorarm/" title="wss.co.uk" rel="nofollow">the arm optimized port</a> [wss.co.uk].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DailyMotion uses Theora .
Wikipedia uses Theora.Flash based Video * is * H.264 these days , you 're comparing unlike things .
Flash can be used as an alternative for the tag .
Codecs are an independent issue.The " hardware accelerated " point is mostly spurious .
No one bothered adding special hardware for older codecs than H.264 because older codecs did n't have the utterly insane cpu requirements .
The Theora decoder is several times faster than H.264 decoders .
Yes , Theora does n't get the same quality per bitrate that H.264 gets but thats not due to any flaws in Theora : Theora is optimized for lower cpu usage instead .
There is no free lunch : Every codec must balance bitrate , quality , cpu usage , licensing/patents , and other factors .
Theora strikes a very different balance than H.264 .
You might try to argue that CPUs are fast enough that H.264 's addition usage is irrelevant , but you ( and everyone elses ) cries for hardware acceleration put the lie to that claim.Moreover , if you 're defining " hardware accelerated " broadly enough that you can say " nearly every platform , desktop and mobile " or even just " most desktops " then you must only be talking about hardware colorspace conversion , which works equally well for Theora .
On many platforms , " hardware acceleration " means little more than using the specialized media instructions most of which apply equally to Theora and H.264 .
On some smartphone platforms ( like palm-pre , android devices , nokia table ) it means using a dedicated DSP , and there is already a port there .
My stupid little jailbroken Iphone decodes full screen theora at about 100fps using the arm optimized port [ wss.co.uk ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DailyMotion uses Theora.
Wikipedia uses Theora.Flash based Video *is* H.264 these days, you're comparing unlike things.
Flash can be used as an alternative for the  tag.
Codecs are an independent issue.The "hardware accelerated" point is mostly spurious.
No one bothered adding special hardware for older codecs than H.264 because older codecs didn't have the utterly insane cpu requirements.
The Theora decoder is several times faster than H.264 decoders.
Yes, Theora doesn't get the same quality per bitrate that H.264 gets but thats not due to any flaws in Theora: Theora is optimized for lower cpu usage instead.
There is no free lunch: Every codec must balance bitrate, quality, cpu usage, licensing/patents, and other factors.
Theora strikes a very different balance than H.264.
You might try to argue that CPUs are fast enough that H.264's addition usage is irrelevant, but you (and everyone elses) cries for hardware acceleration put the lie to that claim.Moreover,  if you're defining "hardware accelerated" broadly enough that you can say "nearly every platform, desktop and mobile" or even just "most desktops" then you must only be talking about hardware colorspace conversion, which works equally well for Theora.
On many platforms, "hardware acceleration" means little more than using the specialized media instructions most of which apply equally to Theora and H.264.
On some smartphone platforms (like palm-pre, android devices, nokia table) it means using a dedicated DSP, and there is already a port there.
My stupid little jailbroken Iphone decodes full screen theora at about 100fps using the arm optimized port [wss.co.uk].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>CowboyBob500</author>
	<datestamp>1264352100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>And yet even with a perfectly legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against H.264, tons of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comments will go against FF's decision to promote an open, free (for everyone, not just the end users) and sane video standard over a proprietary one, ensuring that only people with lots of money can create browsers, run video sites, etc.</i>
<br> <br>
It's time Americans stopped thinking of themselves as the centre of world technology. If Mozilla is determined to follow US law only and therefore not implement H.264 because it's encumbered with license fees there due to dumb local laws, then it is going to go the same way as the whole US software industry - it will disappear into a black hole of law suits and legal action and very quickly become irrelevant.
<br> <br>
H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US. And to be honest, you can cry me a river. The US got itself into this mess, the US needs to get itself out of it, because quite honestly, the rest of the world is not going to wait around in the meantime.
<br> <br>
My prediction? Canonical will fork it as Mark Shuttleworth's vision of Ubuntu is that "it just works". If the only way for him to achieve that is to fork Mozilla, then that is what I'm sure he'll at least consider doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet even with a perfectly legitimate , reasonable , intelligent argument against H.264 , tons of / .
comments will go against FF 's decision to promote an open , free ( for everyone , not just the end users ) and sane video standard over a proprietary one , ensuring that only people with lots of money can create browsers , run video sites , etc .
It 's time Americans stopped thinking of themselves as the centre of world technology .
If Mozilla is determined to follow US law only and therefore not implement H.264 because it 's encumbered with license fees there due to dumb local laws , then it is going to go the same way as the whole US software industry - it will disappear into a black hole of law suits and legal action and very quickly become irrelevant .
H.264 is a free and open standard , just not in the US .
And to be honest , you can cry me a river .
The US got itself into this mess , the US needs to get itself out of it , because quite honestly , the rest of the world is not going to wait around in the meantime .
My prediction ?
Canonical will fork it as Mark Shuttleworth 's vision of Ubuntu is that " it just works " .
If the only way for him to achieve that is to fork Mozilla , then that is what I 'm sure he 'll at least consider doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet even with a perfectly legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against H.264, tons of /.
comments will go against FF's decision to promote an open, free (for everyone, not just the end users) and sane video standard over a proprietary one, ensuring that only people with lots of money can create browsers, run video sites, etc.
It's time Americans stopped thinking of themselves as the centre of world technology.
If Mozilla is determined to follow US law only and therefore not implement H.264 because it's encumbered with license fees there due to dumb local laws, then it is going to go the same way as the whole US software industry - it will disappear into a black hole of law suits and legal action and very quickly become irrelevant.
H.264 is a free and open standard, just not in the US.
And to be honest, you can cry me a river.
The US got itself into this mess, the US needs to get itself out of it, because quite honestly, the rest of the world is not going to wait around in the meantime.
My prediction?
Canonical will fork it as Mark Shuttleworth's vision of Ubuntu is that "it just works".
If the only way for him to achieve that is to fork Mozilla, then that is what I'm sure he'll at least consider doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882816</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla H.264 Fees = $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1264331520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So then Mozilla could charge 99 cents as a one time fee to download the official binary per year (updates from within Firefox would be free for the year). They could also enforce that anyone releasing unofficial builds would not be allowed to call it "Firefox" or include H264 support. Most people are willing to pay 99 cents especially if you frame it as paying to support H264 support and to support future development.
<p>
Cheapskates would be told that they have to download the source and build it themselves.
</p><p>
The GPL offers free access to the source. It does not demand that binaries must be gratis.
</p><p>
Another alternative would be to simply bind Firefox to Core Video (OS X) and Direct Show (windows). Firefox could offer linux users H264 support for a small fee as an optional download.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then Mozilla could charge 99 cents as a one time fee to download the official binary per year ( updates from within Firefox would be free for the year ) .
They could also enforce that anyone releasing unofficial builds would not be allowed to call it " Firefox " or include H264 support .
Most people are willing to pay 99 cents especially if you frame it as paying to support H264 support and to support future development .
Cheapskates would be told that they have to download the source and build it themselves .
The GPL offers free access to the source .
It does not demand that binaries must be gratis .
Another alternative would be to simply bind Firefox to Core Video ( OS X ) and Direct Show ( windows ) .
Firefox could offer linux users H264 support for a small fee as an optional download .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then Mozilla could charge 99 cents as a one time fee to download the official binary per year (updates from within Firefox would be free for the year).
They could also enforce that anyone releasing unofficial builds would not be allowed to call it "Firefox" or include H264 support.
Most people are willing to pay 99 cents especially if you frame it as paying to support H264 support and to support future development.
Cheapskates would be told that they have to download the source and build it themselves.
The GPL offers free access to the source.
It does not demand that binaries must be gratis.
Another alternative would be to simply bind Firefox to Core Video (OS X) and Direct Show (windows).
Firefox could offer linux users H264 support for a small fee as an optional download.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882344</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except they are the largest browser that supports HTML5's Video tag, they use Theora encoded video.  Their market share is more than double the combined share of browsers that do support HTML5 Video with h.264, so maybe, just maybe that should have some sway here.  Of course, if they allowed for the OS to register browser codecs, similar to how plugins are registered, then they could rely on OS functionality.  And have the installer just re-use/register whatever codecs are available on install.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except they are the largest browser that supports HTML5 's Video tag , they use Theora encoded video .
Their market share is more than double the combined share of browsers that do support HTML5 Video with h.264 , so maybe , just maybe that should have some sway here .
Of course , if they allowed for the OS to register browser codecs , similar to how plugins are registered , then they could rely on OS functionality .
And have the installer just re-use/register whatever codecs are available on install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except they are the largest browser that supports HTML5's Video tag, they use Theora encoded video.
Their market share is more than double the combined share of browsers that do support HTML5 Video with h.264, so maybe, just maybe that should have some sway here.
Of course, if they allowed for the OS to register browser codecs, similar to how plugins are registered, then they could rely on OS functionality.
And have the installer just re-use/register whatever codecs are available on install.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878566</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264351260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as anyone is concerned h264 is an open free video standard. There's open free code for the encoder here and for the decoder <a href="http://ffmpeg.org/" title="ffmpeg.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [ffmpeg.org]. Don't expectr a few misguided managers who think patents count for shit to change that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as anyone is concerned h264 is an open free video standard .
There 's open free code for the encoder here and for the decoder here [ ffmpeg.org ] .
Do n't expectr a few misguided managers who think patents count for shit to change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as anyone is concerned h264 is an open free video standard.
There's open free code for the encoder here and for the decoder here [ffmpeg.org].
Don't expectr a few misguided managers who think patents count for shit to change that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881122</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Cyberllama</author>
	<datestamp>1264365120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If flash is an alternative, then certainly Ogg is as well.  Ogg clearly beats out flash . . . Now you can make an argument about which is the greater evil or greater cost when it comes to Ogg vs H.264 of license costs vs bandwidth costs -- but ultimately its a moot point.  This isn't really a case of Ogg vs H.264 -- it's h.264 vs any other free and open alternative.</p><p>Ultimately, there will be something better. If that means a delay in adopting the video tag in html5, then so be it.  It's better for everyone in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If flash is an alternative , then certainly Ogg is as well .
Ogg clearly beats out flash .
. .
Now you can make an argument about which is the greater evil or greater cost when it comes to Ogg vs H.264 of license costs vs bandwidth costs -- but ultimately its a moot point .
This is n't really a case of Ogg vs H.264 -- it 's h.264 vs any other free and open alternative.Ultimately , there will be something better .
If that means a delay in adopting the video tag in html5 , then so be it .
It 's better for everyone in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If flash is an alternative, then certainly Ogg is as well.
Ogg clearly beats out flash .
. .
Now you can make an argument about which is the greater evil or greater cost when it comes to Ogg vs H.264 of license costs vs bandwidth costs -- but ultimately its a moot point.
This isn't really a case of Ogg vs H.264 -- it's h.264 vs any other free and open alternative.Ultimately, there will be something better.
If that means a delay in adopting the video tag in html5, then so be it.
It's better for everyone in the long run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885086</id>
	<title>Re:Fork?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264346820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What we need is clean fork of Firefox which would have some kind of h264 support.</p></div><p>All we need is a clean fork of Firefox that supports native OS APIs for media codecs - DirectShow, GStreamer, QuickTime. This takes care of H.264, as well as any future codecs that may become popular.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need is clean fork of Firefox which would have some kind of h264 support.All we need is a clean fork of Firefox that supports native OS APIs for media codecs - DirectShow , GStreamer , QuickTime .
This takes care of H.264 , as well as any future codecs that may become popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need is clean fork of Firefox which would have some kind of h264 support.All we need is a clean fork of Firefox that supports native OS APIs for media codecs - DirectShow, GStreamer, QuickTime.
This takes care of H.264, as well as any future codecs that may become popular.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882604</id>
	<title>Re:We shouldn't wish to be forced to...</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1264330200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Youtube, Vimeo &amp; Co are trying to use h.264 to become the new majors. I understand why those companies don't want a free codec to succeed: that would lead to more competition and less ways to profit from their position. I'm afraid that in this case their best interests are our worst interests.</p></div><p>They're using H.264 because of the bandwidth costs. When you're looking at saving hundreds of thousands of gigabytes, the savings add up to very real amounts. It's not about stifling competition - that's a side effect. It's about cutting costs.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Think if it happened to images.</p> </div><p>I thought it <i>did</i> happen to images? Aren't JPEG/GIF - the most widely used formats online - patent encumbered? I don't recall anything apocalyptic happening with them, but I have a feeling MPEG-LA will be more pushy. After all, they want money so they can work on H.265.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube , Vimeo &amp; Co are trying to use h.264 to become the new majors .
I understand why those companies do n't want a free codec to succeed : that would lead to more competition and less ways to profit from their position .
I 'm afraid that in this case their best interests are our worst interests.They 're using H.264 because of the bandwidth costs .
When you 're looking at saving hundreds of thousands of gigabytes , the savings add up to very real amounts .
It 's not about stifling competition - that 's a side effect .
It 's about cutting costs.Think if it happened to images .
I thought it did happen to images ?
Are n't JPEG/GIF - the most widely used formats online - patent encumbered ?
I do n't recall anything apocalyptic happening with them , but I have a feeling MPEG-LA will be more pushy .
After all , they want money so they can work on H.265 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube, Vimeo &amp; Co are trying to use h.264 to become the new majors.
I understand why those companies don't want a free codec to succeed: that would lead to more competition and less ways to profit from their position.
I'm afraid that in this case their best interests are our worst interests.They're using H.264 because of the bandwidth costs.
When you're looking at saving hundreds of thousands of gigabytes, the savings add up to very real amounts.
It's not about stifling competition - that's a side effect.
It's about cutting costs.Think if it happened to images.
I thought it did happen to images?
Aren't JPEG/GIF - the most widely used formats online - patent encumbered?
I don't recall anything apocalyptic happening with them, but I have a feeling MPEG-LA will be more pushy.
After all, they want money so they can work on H.265.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881754</id>
	<title>Re:How to silently kill firefox</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1264325280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that the Flash player already supports H.264 videos, and Firefox happily plays those.  As with Flash, this will be solved by a plugin, and in a few years, nobody will even remember this exaggerated controversy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the Flash player already supports H.264 videos , and Firefox happily plays those .
As with Flash , this will be solved by a plugin , and in a few years , nobody will even remember this exaggerated controversy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the Flash player already supports H.264 videos, and Firefox happily plays those.
As with Flash, this will be solved by a plugin, and in a few years, nobody will even remember this exaggerated controversy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894672</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1264453020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps both.</p><p>For one, you WANT to use the OS-available CODEC if it exists. This is the best way to ensure you're tapping into the available hardware resources.</p><p>Mozilla CAN support these things. They can go ahead and build-in a Theora decoder, defaulting to an OS-level replacement if one exists (which might use your GPU, either via OpenCL or an OS-specific video acceleration API, or an add-in like the SPURS Engine).<br>Or only support the external CODECs, but supply the latest Theora for the system at hand. Also support H.264, but not as a built-in, only via an external CODEC. Then offer a closed-source, pay-for CODEC of their own, if they're really that concerned that users won't have them.</p><p>But I think it's important to note that a built-in decoder is only just better than none at all. It should be the last resort... OS level decoders should be used if available. Yeah, it's a little more work for the developers.</p><p>It's stupid that this became a format war by the browser people. The real way to support innovation is to recommend that  hooks into an OS multimedia system, if available. And that fully compliant browsers will supports some set of CODECs... such as H.264 and Theora, others optional. This allows content providers more freedom, and lets the whole industry get their act together on the formats everyone wants to support.</p><p>This has happened before... with DVD and then Blu-Ray.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps both.For one , you WANT to use the OS-available CODEC if it exists .
This is the best way to ensure you 're tapping into the available hardware resources.Mozilla CAN support these things .
They can go ahead and build-in a Theora decoder , defaulting to an OS-level replacement if one exists ( which might use your GPU , either via OpenCL or an OS-specific video acceleration API , or an add-in like the SPURS Engine ) .Or only support the external CODECs , but supply the latest Theora for the system at hand .
Also support H.264 , but not as a built-in , only via an external CODEC .
Then offer a closed-source , pay-for CODEC of their own , if they 're really that concerned that users wo n't have them.But I think it 's important to note that a built-in decoder is only just better than none at all .
It should be the last resort... OS level decoders should be used if available .
Yeah , it 's a little more work for the developers.It 's stupid that this became a format war by the browser people .
The real way to support innovation is to recommend that hooks into an OS multimedia system , if available .
And that fully compliant browsers will supports some set of CODECs... such as H.264 and Theora , others optional .
This allows content providers more freedom , and lets the whole industry get their act together on the formats everyone wants to support.This has happened before... with DVD and then Blu-Ray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps both.For one, you WANT to use the OS-available CODEC if it exists.
This is the best way to ensure you're tapping into the available hardware resources.Mozilla CAN support these things.
They can go ahead and build-in a Theora decoder, defaulting to an OS-level replacement if one exists (which might use your GPU, either via OpenCL or an OS-specific video acceleration API, or an add-in like the SPURS Engine).Or only support the external CODECs, but supply the latest Theora for the system at hand.
Also support H.264, but not as a built-in, only via an external CODEC.
Then offer a closed-source, pay-for CODEC of their own, if they're really that concerned that users won't have them.But I think it's important to note that a built-in decoder is only just better than none at all.
It should be the last resort... OS level decoders should be used if available.
Yeah, it's a little more work for the developers.It's stupid that this became a format war by the browser people.
The real way to support innovation is to recommend that  hooks into an OS multimedia system, if available.
And that fully compliant browsers will supports some set of CODECs... such as H.264 and Theora, others optional.
This allows content providers more freedom, and lets the whole industry get their act together on the formats everyone wants to support.This has happened before... with DVD and then Blu-Ray.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880520</id>
	<title>Re:How to silently kill firefox</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1264362000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think Firefox was even a target and is rather it was collateral damage. Rather I think is probably along these line:<br>
&nbsp; - H264 was support by Apple<br>
&nbsp; - Google was on good terms with Apple<br>
&nbsp; - MP4/H264 provide high quality images for bandwidth. Think HD video<br>
&nbsp; - Ogg Theora is nice and all, but is not available in any commercial product</p><p>IMHO, Ogg Theora people are so wound up in their ideology that they aren't addressing what they need to to give MP4/H264 a run for its money. Believe me sometimes you have to step out of the tower and walk into the market. The MPEG group needs to do the same, for different reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Firefox was even a target and is rather it was collateral damage .
Rather I think is probably along these line :   - H264 was support by Apple   - Google was on good terms with Apple   - MP4/H264 provide high quality images for bandwidth .
Think HD video   - Ogg Theora is nice and all , but is not available in any commercial productIMHO , Ogg Theora people are so wound up in their ideology that they are n't addressing what they need to to give MP4/H264 a run for its money .
Believe me sometimes you have to step out of the tower and walk into the market .
The MPEG group needs to do the same , for different reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Firefox was even a target and is rather it was collateral damage.
Rather I think is probably along these line:
  - H264 was support by Apple
  - Google was on good terms with Apple
  - MP4/H264 provide high quality images for bandwidth.
Think HD video
  - Ogg Theora is nice and all, but is not available in any commercial productIMHO, Ogg Theora people are so wound up in their ideology that they aren't addressing what they need to to give MP4/H264 a run for its money.
Believe me sometimes you have to step out of the tower and walk into the market.
The MPEG group needs to do the same, for different reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879794</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>fandingo</author>
	<datestamp>1264358760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...then it is going to go the same way as the whole US software industry - it will disappear into a black hole of law suits and legal action and very quickly become irrelevant.</p><p>It's not like all major operating systems are developed in the US (Windows, Mac, Linux -- US corporations are the primary workers on the kernel, Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, Linus lives in the US). Adobe is based in the US. I'm trying to think of other large software companies that exist completely outside the US, and I'm coming up blank. KDE is the best one that I can think of at the moment (KDE e.V. is German-based).</p><p>For all the stink that people make about software patents, they really aren't used very much. There has been all the cellphone lawsuits lately, but that's not normal.</p><p>I think that if Mozilla would sit down with MPEG-LA they could get a really good license (i.e. no cost). The bigger issue is complying with the GPL. I hope they can work something out because theora is simply inferior to h.264.</p><p>I think that there are patent concerns about theora. While the creators do not hold patents on it, that certainly does not mean that there are no patents on it. That's a very large danger. Google may have to spend $5M for Chrome to support h.264, but if they use Theora and there is a submarine patent, then they will be paying way more than $5M. With H.264, MPEG-LA will be defending those suits, and I'm sure in the licensing terms they guarantee that they are the only body that holds the patents. That basically gives a corporation insurance against patent suits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...then it is going to go the same way as the whole US software industry - it will disappear into a black hole of law suits and legal action and very quickly become irrelevant.It 's not like all major operating systems are developed in the US ( Windows , Mac , Linux -- US corporations are the primary workers on the kernel , Red Hat , Novell , Oracle , Linus lives in the US ) .
Adobe is based in the US .
I 'm trying to think of other large software companies that exist completely outside the US , and I 'm coming up blank .
KDE is the best one that I can think of at the moment ( KDE e.V .
is German-based ) .For all the stink that people make about software patents , they really are n't used very much .
There has been all the cellphone lawsuits lately , but that 's not normal.I think that if Mozilla would sit down with MPEG-LA they could get a really good license ( i.e .
no cost ) .
The bigger issue is complying with the GPL .
I hope they can work something out because theora is simply inferior to h.264.I think that there are patent concerns about theora .
While the creators do not hold patents on it , that certainly does not mean that there are no patents on it .
That 's a very large danger .
Google may have to spend $ 5M for Chrome to support h.264 , but if they use Theora and there is a submarine patent , then they will be paying way more than $ 5M .
With H.264 , MPEG-LA will be defending those suits , and I 'm sure in the licensing terms they guarantee that they are the only body that holds the patents .
That basically gives a corporation insurance against patent suits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...then it is going to go the same way as the whole US software industry - it will disappear into a black hole of law suits and legal action and very quickly become irrelevant.It's not like all major operating systems are developed in the US (Windows, Mac, Linux -- US corporations are the primary workers on the kernel, Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, Linus lives in the US).
Adobe is based in the US.
I'm trying to think of other large software companies that exist completely outside the US, and I'm coming up blank.
KDE is the best one that I can think of at the moment (KDE e.V.
is German-based).For all the stink that people make about software patents, they really aren't used very much.
There has been all the cellphone lawsuits lately, but that's not normal.I think that if Mozilla would sit down with MPEG-LA they could get a really good license (i.e.
no cost).
The bigger issue is complying with the GPL.
I hope they can work something out because theora is simply inferior to h.264.I think that there are patent concerns about theora.
While the creators do not hold patents on it, that certainly does not mean that there are no patents on it.
That's a very large danger.
Google may have to spend $5M for Chrome to support h.264, but if they use Theora and there is a submarine patent, then they will be paying way more than $5M.
With H.264, MPEG-LA will be defending those suits, and I'm sure in the licensing terms they guarantee that they are the only body that holds the patents.
That basically gives a corporation insurance against patent suits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884470</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>maztuhblastah</author>
	<datestamp>1264342740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry, back here in reality Theora's quality is at least on par with H.264 with the same size. But thanks for your attempt at FUD, though.</p></div><p>So... you linked to the Theora developer's site to support a Theora developer's claims that Theora was superior to competitors.  And then you accuse him of FUD?</p><p>Nice.</p><p>The test you linked to, BTW, is crap.  No triangle tests, no A/B testing, etc.  Just one guy who uploaded and downloaded a sample from YouTube (the encoder and encoding parameters of which he did not know) and compared it to a Theora encode that he did using some rather... "interesting" settings, most notably this: "A keyframe interval of 250 frames was used for the Theora encoding."</p><p>A 250 frame keyframe rate?  Are you kidding me?!  I don't know what YouTube's using for its keyframe interval, but I guarangoddamntee you it's lower than that.  That's a keyframe every 10 seconds.  Let's try an encode with H.264 with that interval and see how it measures up to Theora, hm?</p><p>Look, I'm all for using open formats rather than closed ones, but citing a wildly flawed, extremely limited casual test as proof of your contender's superiority just reeks of desperation.  Theora's pretty good for what it is: an open source continuation of an old codec that was donated because its commercial competitors had surpassed it.  The OSS community's done a good job of improving it and evolving it, and it's great to even have an open-source video codec -- but claiming that it's superior is just flat-out false.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , back here in reality Theora 's quality is at least on par with H.264 with the same size .
But thanks for your attempt at FUD , though.So... you linked to the Theora developer 's site to support a Theora developer 's claims that Theora was superior to competitors .
And then you accuse him of FUD ? Nice.The test you linked to , BTW , is crap .
No triangle tests , no A/B testing , etc .
Just one guy who uploaded and downloaded a sample from YouTube ( the encoder and encoding parameters of which he did not know ) and compared it to a Theora encode that he did using some rather... " interesting " settings , most notably this : " A keyframe interval of 250 frames was used for the Theora encoding .
" A 250 frame keyframe rate ?
Are you kidding me ? !
I do n't know what YouTube 's using for its keyframe interval , but I guarangoddamntee you it 's lower than that .
That 's a keyframe every 10 seconds .
Let 's try an encode with H.264 with that interval and see how it measures up to Theora , hm ? Look , I 'm all for using open formats rather than closed ones , but citing a wildly flawed , extremely limited casual test as proof of your contender 's superiority just reeks of desperation .
Theora 's pretty good for what it is : an open source continuation of an old codec that was donated because its commercial competitors had surpassed it .
The OSS community 's done a good job of improving it and evolving it , and it 's great to even have an open-source video codec -- but claiming that it 's superior is just flat-out false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, back here in reality Theora's quality is at least on par with H.264 with the same size.
But thanks for your attempt at FUD, though.So... you linked to the Theora developer's site to support a Theora developer's claims that Theora was superior to competitors.
And then you accuse him of FUD?Nice.The test you linked to, BTW, is crap.
No triangle tests, no A/B testing, etc.
Just one guy who uploaded and downloaded a sample from YouTube (the encoder and encoding parameters of which he did not know) and compared it to a Theora encode that he did using some rather... "interesting" settings, most notably this: "A keyframe interval of 250 frames was used for the Theora encoding.
"A 250 frame keyframe rate?
Are you kidding me?!
I don't know what YouTube's using for its keyframe interval, but I guarangoddamntee you it's lower than that.
That's a keyframe every 10 seconds.
Let's try an encode with H.264 with that interval and see how it measures up to Theora, hm?Look, I'm all for using open formats rather than closed ones, but citing a wildly flawed, extremely limited casual test as proof of your contender's superiority just reeks of desperation.
Theora's pretty good for what it is: an open source continuation of an old codec that was donated because its commercial competitors had surpassed it.
The OSS community's done a good job of improving it and evolving it, and it's great to even have an open-source video codec -- but claiming that it's superior is just flat-out false.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879710</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1264358280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is so utterly archaic and unfair that this is allowed to continue; MPEG-LA have the industry by its consumers by their collective balls.</p></div><p>Err, not really.  Nobody forced anyone to adopt h.264; it just happens that it did get adopted because it actually is a good codec.  There <i>are</i> alternatives of varying quality and success, and even if there weren't, nothing is stopping someone from designing one and marketing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is so utterly archaic and unfair that this is allowed to continue ; MPEG-LA have the industry by its consumers by their collective balls.Err , not really .
Nobody forced anyone to adopt h.264 ; it just happens that it did get adopted because it actually is a good codec .
There are alternatives of varying quality and success , and even if there were n't , nothing is stopping someone from designing one and marketing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is so utterly archaic and unfair that this is allowed to continue; MPEG-LA have the industry by its consumers by their collective balls.Err, not really.
Nobody forced anyone to adopt h.264; it just happens that it did get adopted because it actually is a good codec.
There are alternatives of varying quality and success, and even if there weren't, nothing is stopping someone from designing one and marketing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878862</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264353060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Don't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB? PCI? AGP?</i></p><p>For USB the only fees are for using official logos to show a product passed certification testing. For PCI you pay 3K/year for a membership to get a PCI ID assigned, but there is no licensing fee I am aware of. I don't know about AGP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB ?
PCI ? AGP ? For USB the only fees are for using official logos to show a product passed certification testing .
For PCI you pay 3K/year for a membership to get a PCI ID assigned , but there is no licensing fee I am aware of .
I do n't know about AGP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Don't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB?
PCI? AGP?For USB the only fees are for using official logos to show a product passed certification testing.
For PCI you pay 3K/year for a membership to get a PCI ID assigned, but there is no licensing fee I am aware of.
I don't know about AGP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880454</id>
	<title>TPB?</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1264361760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The most important thing is to persuade the Pirate Bay to support Theora but not H264.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most important thing is to persuade the Pirate Bay to support Theora but not H264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most important thing is to persuade the Pirate Bay to support Theora but not H264.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879588</id>
	<title>software patents are immoral</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264357560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and contrary to the concepts of a free market</p><p>we should actively rip off h.264, not because we want to use the codec for free, but simply to undermine the status quo that some people, for whatever reason, respect this bullshit called software patents</p><p>those who created the codec need to depend upon ancillary streams of revenue, such as hardware prodcuts that depend upon the software ideas. meanwhile, patenting a simple arrangement of bits is contrary to the free exchange of ideas</p><p>you should only be able to patent physical objects</p><p>everything else is abstract representation: this should never be protected. do we respect the idea that the church of scientology has a copyright on its sacred texts? of course this is bullshit, just as much as it is bullshit that the RIAA attempts to control the flow of bits, or that the chinese autocracy attempts to control the flow of information: the entirety of the phylosophical concept of putting roadblocks on the flow of ideas is a form weakness, failure. it leads to a less rich society</p><p>ip law must be actively fought</p><p>luckily, this is all too easy, because the internet is the disruptive techology that destroys ip law, whether some people like it or not</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and contrary to the concepts of a free marketwe should actively rip off h.264 , not because we want to use the codec for free , but simply to undermine the status quo that some people , for whatever reason , respect this bullshit called software patentsthose who created the codec need to depend upon ancillary streams of revenue , such as hardware prodcuts that depend upon the software ideas .
meanwhile , patenting a simple arrangement of bits is contrary to the free exchange of ideasyou should only be able to patent physical objectseverything else is abstract representation : this should never be protected .
do we respect the idea that the church of scientology has a copyright on its sacred texts ?
of course this is bullshit , just as much as it is bullshit that the RIAA attempts to control the flow of bits , or that the chinese autocracy attempts to control the flow of information : the entirety of the phylosophical concept of putting roadblocks on the flow of ideas is a form weakness , failure .
it leads to a less rich societyip law must be actively foughtluckily , this is all too easy , because the internet is the disruptive techology that destroys ip law , whether some people like it or not</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and contrary to the concepts of a free marketwe should actively rip off h.264, not because we want to use the codec for free, but simply to undermine the status quo that some people, for whatever reason, respect this bullshit called software patentsthose who created the codec need to depend upon ancillary streams of revenue, such as hardware prodcuts that depend upon the software ideas.
meanwhile, patenting a simple arrangement of bits is contrary to the free exchange of ideasyou should only be able to patent physical objectseverything else is abstract representation: this should never be protected.
do we respect the idea that the church of scientology has a copyright on its sacred texts?
of course this is bullshit, just as much as it is bullshit that the RIAA attempts to control the flow of bits, or that the chinese autocracy attempts to control the flow of information: the entirety of the phylosophical concept of putting roadblocks on the flow of ideas is a form weakness, failure.
it leads to a less rich societyip law must be actively foughtluckily, this is all too easy, because the internet is the disruptive techology that destroys ip law, whether some people like it or not</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30887130</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264452780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean that the browser can "call" an internal H.264 engine and be done with it? Or is it done by an auxiliary program like WMPlayer or QuickTime or VLC? If so, why are we discussing this anyway?? Any browser should be able to "bundle" VLC and be done with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean that the browser can " call " an internal H.264 engine and be done with it ?
Or is it done by an auxiliary program like WMPlayer or QuickTime or VLC ?
If so , why are we discussing this anyway ? ?
Any browser should be able to " bundle " VLC and be done with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean that the browser can "call" an internal H.264 engine and be done with it?
Or is it done by an auxiliary program like WMPlayer or QuickTime or VLC?
If so, why are we discussing this anyway??
Any browser should be able to "bundle" VLC and be done with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894728</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1264453140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The hope is that a better codec than either will appear with more suitable licensing terms</i></p><p>Hope is an excuse for inaction.</p><p>Doesn't MoFo have a fair amount of Google revenue to invest?  If this is really such a critical issue, why not drop a team of image processing PhD's on this for a couple years (and some engineers, of course)?  There's nothing saying Mozilla efforts can't have broad applicability outside of Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hope is that a better codec than either will appear with more suitable licensing termsHope is an excuse for inaction.Does n't MoFo have a fair amount of Google revenue to invest ?
If this is really such a critical issue , why not drop a team of image processing PhD 's on this for a couple years ( and some engineers , of course ) ?
There 's nothing saying Mozilla efforts ca n't have broad applicability outside of Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hope is that a better codec than either will appear with more suitable licensing termsHope is an excuse for inaction.Doesn't MoFo have a fair amount of Google revenue to invest?
If this is really such a critical issue, why not drop a team of image processing PhD's on this for a couple years (and some engineers, of course)?
There's nothing saying Mozilla efforts can't have broad applicability outside of Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879574</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Debian used to have the "Non-US" repositories. I can't see why they couldn't go back to it.</p><p>As much as everyone hates it, Ogg isn't going to win this. As far as I know there isn't a single hardware decoder for it yet. Almost any newer Nvidia card will do it. VDPAU under Linux works AWESOME. It will even upscale SD content (feature set C). Broadcom has their MiniPCI card that a ton of NetBooks run. I bought one for my AppleTV so that I can do 1080p. XBMC supports it. OS X should support it soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Debian used to have the " Non-US " repositories .
I ca n't see why they could n't go back to it.As much as everyone hates it , Ogg is n't going to win this .
As far as I know there is n't a single hardware decoder for it yet .
Almost any newer Nvidia card will do it .
VDPAU under Linux works AWESOME .
It will even upscale SD content ( feature set C ) .
Broadcom has their MiniPCI card that a ton of NetBooks run .
I bought one for my AppleTV so that I can do 1080p .
XBMC supports it .
OS X should support it soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debian used to have the "Non-US" repositories.
I can't see why they couldn't go back to it.As much as everyone hates it, Ogg isn't going to win this.
As far as I know there isn't a single hardware decoder for it yet.
Almost any newer Nvidia card will do it.
VDPAU under Linux works AWESOME.
It will even upscale SD content (feature set C).
Broadcom has their MiniPCI card that a ton of NetBooks run.
I bought one for my AppleTV so that I can do 1080p.
XBMC supports it.
OS X should support it soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878604</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>Pinky's Brain</author>
	<datestamp>1264351500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash is H.264.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash is H.264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash is H.264.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878794</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1264352760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the wonderful, wonderful world of Software Patents. Or well, patents in general, they're all about taking control of the work somebody else did with his own two hands merely because it's in some way similar to what you thought of a decade ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the wonderful , wonderful world of Software Patents .
Or well , patents in general , they 're all about taking control of the work somebody else did with his own two hands merely because it 's in some way similar to what you thought of a decade ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the wonderful, wonderful world of Software Patents.
Or well, patents in general, they're all about taking control of the work somebody else did with his own two hands merely because it's in some way similar to what you thought of a decade ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30895484</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1264412940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, actually, most of these "Intel-pushed" standards, like USB, PCI, AGP, PCI Express, etc. are patented, but you're granted free license to all patents if you follow the specs. This is because Intel just wants to sell the chips, and adding new interfaces sells more chips. It's a good thing.</p><p>In fact, USB was born largely because Apple was asking $1.00 per port for Firewire, and Intel though that was nuts, given the margins in the PC industry. At the same time, Compaq and some others were trying to figure out some kind of "desktop bus" standard, like DEC's Access.Bus or Apple's ADB. The two forces got together, and the result was very good for us. Even for Apple, eventually. And Firewire was mitigated to special purpose applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , actually , most of these " Intel-pushed " standards , like USB , PCI , AGP , PCI Express , etc .
are patented , but you 're granted free license to all patents if you follow the specs .
This is because Intel just wants to sell the chips , and adding new interfaces sells more chips .
It 's a good thing.In fact , USB was born largely because Apple was asking $ 1.00 per port for Firewire , and Intel though that was nuts , given the margins in the PC industry .
At the same time , Compaq and some others were trying to figure out some kind of " desktop bus " standard , like DEC 's Access.Bus or Apple 's ADB .
The two forces got together , and the result was very good for us .
Even for Apple , eventually .
And Firewire was mitigated to special purpose applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, actually, most of these "Intel-pushed" standards, like USB, PCI, AGP, PCI Express, etc.
are patented, but you're granted free license to all patents if you follow the specs.
This is because Intel just wants to sell the chips, and adding new interfaces sells more chips.
It's a good thing.In fact, USB was born largely because Apple was asking $1.00 per port for Firewire, and Intel though that was nuts, given the margins in the PC industry.
At the same time, Compaq and some others were trying to figure out some kind of "desktop bus" standard, like DEC's Access.Bus or Apple's ADB.
The two forces got together, and the result was very good for us.
Even for Apple, eventually.
And Firewire was mitigated to special purpose applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881716</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla H.264 Fees = $5,000,000+ per year</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1264325100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like an excellent reason to avoid H.264.  But what if a system were set up whereby all the H.264 decoding was done purely in the video card?  The application (such as the Firefox browser) would identify an area of its display for video location.  That area would be passed on via the video display layer (X and it's video chipset driver) as translated to the full display, to the video card/chipset.  Associated with that identified display location would be a data stream, with flow control, as well as an additional substream for metadata such as decryption keys where needed.  Then the browser merely feeds a raw bit stream that X passes on to the video card.</p><p>Is MPEG-LA going to want to claim licensing of the browser and/or display system (X) just because they are passing along a bit stream (that may even be encoded in something else besides an MPEG/H.264 format, so the software might never even know what it is) ?</p><p>Even if they don't claim a right to license the raw bitstream transmissions just because the data might contain something encoded in a format they hold rights to, there is still an issue around licensing "per encoding".  They are wanting to charges licensing at that stage based on how many viewers are actually going to decode and view it, or even potential viewers (e.g. licensing of broadcasts by market size).  None of the articles gave any info on how the market size fits in per video hosted on a web site, since the potential "market" for a web page is the entire world.</p><p>I emailed that organization about 3 years ago and specifically asked for licensing information.  I got no answer.  Perhaps they just don't want to address licensing issues for millions of individual web sites?  But they clearly aren't coming out and saying those will be free, either.</p><p>I did contact Unisys about licensing LZW, for inside GIF, many years back when that was an issue.  At least to their credit they did answer, and were willing to discuss it.  The problem was, the terms just didn't want to recognize a small operation that was generating GIFs on the fly (so there would have been LZW encoding going on, or else uncompressed GIFs).  They wanted to license based on factors that I could not provide, such as number of subscribers (since there were no subscribers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they didn't understand the web very well back then).  The only alternative was a flat rate that was around ten times my whole first years startup costs.  The lady I spoke with at Unisys did personally understand the issues, and acknowledged to me that she could clearly see that the licensing structure didn't work for me, and that her management clearly "did not get it" with respect to web usage.  She also acknowledged that they were unlikely to ever make any effort to straighten it out with respect to "small users" that, in total, represented less than one percent of their licensing revenue.</p><p>BTW, I would have switched to PNG for that project, but the PNG group made a serious error in not including basic animation within the standard.  So don't get any idea that the open standards community does things well, either.  PNG is a clear case of failing to completely address a need (they tried to replace GIF without addressing all of what GIF could do).</p><p>MPEG-LA licensing seems to be as equally messed up as Unisys was.  Maybe the same clueless management is there?  Or maybe it's all the owners of all the patent components they are bundling that have turned it into a camel?</p><p>Anyway, unless and until this is fixed (which I doubt will ever happen), then MPEG/H.264 is something for the open source, open standards, open access, open information, communities to stay away from.  PNG, despite its omissions, did succeed to supplant a large portion of GIFs and managed to stay on as a viable image format.  MNG, the motion successor to PNG, I'm not so sure of.  JPEG did the rest and GIF pretty much was clobbered until the LZW patent ran out in most of the world.</p><p>PNG didn't do as well as GIF and/or JPEG in most cases.  Yet it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like an excellent reason to avoid H.264 .
But what if a system were set up whereby all the H.264 decoding was done purely in the video card ?
The application ( such as the Firefox browser ) would identify an area of its display for video location .
That area would be passed on via the video display layer ( X and it 's video chipset driver ) as translated to the full display , to the video card/chipset .
Associated with that identified display location would be a data stream , with flow control , as well as an additional substream for metadata such as decryption keys where needed .
Then the browser merely feeds a raw bit stream that X passes on to the video card.Is MPEG-LA going to want to claim licensing of the browser and/or display system ( X ) just because they are passing along a bit stream ( that may even be encoded in something else besides an MPEG/H.264 format , so the software might never even know what it is ) ? Even if they do n't claim a right to license the raw bitstream transmissions just because the data might contain something encoded in a format they hold rights to , there is still an issue around licensing " per encoding " .
They are wanting to charges licensing at that stage based on how many viewers are actually going to decode and view it , or even potential viewers ( e.g .
licensing of broadcasts by market size ) .
None of the articles gave any info on how the market size fits in per video hosted on a web site , since the potential " market " for a web page is the entire world.I emailed that organization about 3 years ago and specifically asked for licensing information .
I got no answer .
Perhaps they just do n't want to address licensing issues for millions of individual web sites ?
But they clearly are n't coming out and saying those will be free , either.I did contact Unisys about licensing LZW , for inside GIF , many years back when that was an issue .
At least to their credit they did answer , and were willing to discuss it .
The problem was , the terms just did n't want to recognize a small operation that was generating GIFs on the fly ( so there would have been LZW encoding going on , or else uncompressed GIFs ) .
They wanted to license based on factors that I could not provide , such as number of subscribers ( since there were no subscribers ... they did n't understand the web very well back then ) .
The only alternative was a flat rate that was around ten times my whole first years startup costs .
The lady I spoke with at Unisys did personally understand the issues , and acknowledged to me that she could clearly see that the licensing structure did n't work for me , and that her management clearly " did not get it " with respect to web usage .
She also acknowledged that they were unlikely to ever make any effort to straighten it out with respect to " small users " that , in total , represented less than one percent of their licensing revenue.BTW , I would have switched to PNG for that project , but the PNG group made a serious error in not including basic animation within the standard .
So do n't get any idea that the open standards community does things well , either .
PNG is a clear case of failing to completely address a need ( they tried to replace GIF without addressing all of what GIF could do ) .MPEG-LA licensing seems to be as equally messed up as Unisys was .
Maybe the same clueless management is there ?
Or maybe it 's all the owners of all the patent components they are bundling that have turned it into a camel ? Anyway , unless and until this is fixed ( which I doubt will ever happen ) , then MPEG/H.264 is something for the open source , open standards , open access , open information , communities to stay away from .
PNG , despite its omissions , did succeed to supplant a large portion of GIFs and managed to stay on as a viable image format .
MNG , the motion successor to PNG , I 'm not so sure of .
JPEG did the rest and GIF pretty much was clobbered until the LZW patent ran out in most of the world.PNG did n't do as well as GIF and/or JPEG in most cases .
Yet it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like an excellent reason to avoid H.264.
But what if a system were set up whereby all the H.264 decoding was done purely in the video card?
The application (such as the Firefox browser) would identify an area of its display for video location.
That area would be passed on via the video display layer (X and it's video chipset driver) as translated to the full display, to the video card/chipset.
Associated with that identified display location would be a data stream, with flow control, as well as an additional substream for metadata such as decryption keys where needed.
Then the browser merely feeds a raw bit stream that X passes on to the video card.Is MPEG-LA going to want to claim licensing of the browser and/or display system (X) just because they are passing along a bit stream (that may even be encoded in something else besides an MPEG/H.264 format, so the software might never even know what it is) ?Even if they don't claim a right to license the raw bitstream transmissions just because the data might contain something encoded in a format they hold rights to, there is still an issue around licensing "per encoding".
They are wanting to charges licensing at that stage based on how many viewers are actually going to decode and view it, or even potential viewers (e.g.
licensing of broadcasts by market size).
None of the articles gave any info on how the market size fits in per video hosted on a web site, since the potential "market" for a web page is the entire world.I emailed that organization about 3 years ago and specifically asked for licensing information.
I got no answer.
Perhaps they just don't want to address licensing issues for millions of individual web sites?
But they clearly aren't coming out and saying those will be free, either.I did contact Unisys about licensing LZW, for inside GIF, many years back when that was an issue.
At least to their credit they did answer, and were willing to discuss it.
The problem was, the terms just didn't want to recognize a small operation that was generating GIFs on the fly (so there would have been LZW encoding going on, or else uncompressed GIFs).
They wanted to license based on factors that I could not provide, such as number of subscribers (since there were no subscribers ... they didn't understand the web very well back then).
The only alternative was a flat rate that was around ten times my whole first years startup costs.
The lady I spoke with at Unisys did personally understand the issues, and acknowledged to me that she could clearly see that the licensing structure didn't work for me, and that her management clearly "did not get it" with respect to web usage.
She also acknowledged that they were unlikely to ever make any effort to straighten it out with respect to "small users" that, in total, represented less than one percent of their licensing revenue.BTW, I would have switched to PNG for that project, but the PNG group made a serious error in not including basic animation within the standard.
So don't get any idea that the open standards community does things well, either.
PNG is a clear case of failing to completely address a need (they tried to replace GIF without addressing all of what GIF could do).MPEG-LA licensing seems to be as equally messed up as Unisys was.
Maybe the same clueless management is there?
Or maybe it's all the owners of all the patent components they are bundling that have turned it into a camel?Anyway, unless and until this is fixed (which I doubt will ever happen), then MPEG/H.264 is something for the open source, open standards, open access, open information, communities to stay away from.
PNG, despite its omissions, did succeed to supplant a large portion of GIFs and managed to stay on as a viable image format.
MNG, the motion successor to PNG, I'm not so sure of.
JPEG did the rest and GIF pretty much was clobbered until the LZW patent ran out in most of the world.PNG didn't do as well as GIF and/or JPEG in most cases.
Yet it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878490</id>
	<title>Re:Just open up the video architecture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264350840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. Couldn't this problem be avoided by just using something like GStreamer for the playback and let it and the OS take care of the codecs? Then you don't have to include anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Could n't this problem be avoided by just using something like GStreamer for the playback and let it and the OS take care of the codecs ?
Then you do n't have to include anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Couldn't this problem be avoided by just using something like GStreamer for the playback and let it and the OS take care of the codecs?
Then you don't have to include anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885044</id>
	<title>Re:We shouldn't wish to be forced to...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264346580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You aren't forced to do anything. HTML5 does not mandate H.264 support for VIDEO element. If some browsers chose not to support it, and some websites chose not to offer it, they're still conformant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are n't forced to do anything .
HTML5 does not mandate H.264 support for VIDEO element .
If some browsers chose not to support it , and some websites chose not to offer it , they 're still conformant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You aren't forced to do anything.
HTML5 does not mandate H.264 support for VIDEO element.
If some browsers chose not to support it, and some websites chose not to offer it, they're still conformant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878614</id>
	<title>Re:Just open up the video architecture</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1264351560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand how that solves the problem of being forced to rely on patented code (and therefore being forced to pay license fees) to be able to perform a basic, mundane task.  That is nothing more than playing hot potato with the problem and quickly passing it on to the users, expecting that somehow they solve the problem that they failed to tackle to begin with.  In fact, that is a pretty big incentive for video sites such as youtube to simply stick with flash video.  How is that a step forward?</p><p>That is not how you solve the problem.  You solve it by not relying on patent-encumbered standards from the start, which is exactly where we are right now and which is exactly what Mozilla is doing.  And unless organizations such as Mozilla make a stance on this issue then we, the public, are screwed once again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how that solves the problem of being forced to rely on patented code ( and therefore being forced to pay license fees ) to be able to perform a basic , mundane task .
That is nothing more than playing hot potato with the problem and quickly passing it on to the users , expecting that somehow they solve the problem that they failed to tackle to begin with .
In fact , that is a pretty big incentive for video sites such as youtube to simply stick with flash video .
How is that a step forward ? That is not how you solve the problem .
You solve it by not relying on patent-encumbered standards from the start , which is exactly where we are right now and which is exactly what Mozilla is doing .
And unless organizations such as Mozilla make a stance on this issue then we , the public , are screwed once again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how that solves the problem of being forced to rely on patented code (and therefore being forced to pay license fees) to be able to perform a basic, mundane task.
That is nothing more than playing hot potato with the problem and quickly passing it on to the users, expecting that somehow they solve the problem that they failed to tackle to begin with.
In fact, that is a pretty big incentive for video sites such as youtube to simply stick with flash video.
How is that a step forward?That is not how you solve the problem.
You solve it by not relying on patent-encumbered standards from the start, which is exactly where we are right now and which is exactly what Mozilla is doing.
And unless organizations such as Mozilla make a stance on this issue then we, the public, are screwed once again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878580</id>
	<title>Good idea, wrong implementation.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1264351320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just throw a DirectShow interface at the video player and quit shipping codecs.</i></p><p>How do you propose they do that on OS X or Linux?</p><p>The general idea is a good one, but <a href="http://ffmpeg.org/" title="ffmpeg.org">FFmpeg</a> [ffmpeg.org] is probably a more generaly useful approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just throw a DirectShow interface at the video player and quit shipping codecs.How do you propose they do that on OS X or Linux ? The general idea is a good one , but FFmpeg [ ffmpeg.org ] is probably a more generaly useful approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just throw a DirectShow interface at the video player and quit shipping codecs.How do you propose they do that on OS X or Linux?The general idea is a good one, but FFmpeg [ffmpeg.org] is probably a more generaly useful approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879062</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1264354260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB? PCI? AGP? Those are all standards.</p></div><p>People might cought the fees but Mozilla doesn't include implementations of USB, PCI and AGP. If people were to cough a standard fee for H264 on their OS, then Mozilla would also support it. But, as the article states: <i>"Most users with Windows Vista and earlier do not have an H.264 codec installed. So for the majority of our users, this doesn't solve any problem."</i>. Hey, did you read the article ?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm assuming you are projecting the fact that most people are purely interested in open source. You are wrong. Most people want things to just work.</p></div><p>But idealism is the <i>"reason for Mozilla to exist."</i> as the article states which really begs the question: <b>did you read the article ?</b> </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The day Firefox stops *just working* [competitors will win]</p></div><p>Oh, h264 video is the definition of a workable web browser? I don't think so, but also how about "<i>Currently providing H.264 content on the Internet is zero-cost, but after 2010 that will almost certainly change [...] If you just want to put a few videos on your Web site, or add a help video to your Web application, or put a video cut-scene in your Web game, that is probably not something you want to do.</i>" ?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>By the way, has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing?</p></div><p>Look, just read the article, ok ? (Sorry no video option available)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB ?
PCI ? AGP ?
Those are all standards.People might cought the fees but Mozilla does n't include implementations of USB , PCI and AGP .
If people were to cough a standard fee for H264 on their OS , then Mozilla would also support it .
But , as the article states : " Most users with Windows Vista and earlier do not have an H.264 codec installed .
So for the majority of our users , this does n't solve any problem. " .
Hey , did you read the article ? I 'm assuming you are projecting the fact that most people are purely interested in open source .
You are wrong .
Most people want things to just work.But idealism is the " reason for Mozilla to exist .
" as the article states which really begs the question : did you read the article ?
The day Firefox stops * just working * [ competitors will win ] Oh , h264 video is the definition of a workable web browser ?
I do n't think so , but also how about " Currently providing H.264 content on the Internet is zero-cost , but after 2010 that will almost certainly change [ ... ] If you just want to put a few videos on your Web site , or add a help video to your Web application , or put a video cut-scene in your Web game , that is probably not something you want to do .
" ? By the way , has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing ? Look , just read the article , ok ?
( Sorry no video option available )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB?
PCI? AGP?
Those are all standards.People might cought the fees but Mozilla doesn't include implementations of USB, PCI and AGP.
If people were to cough a standard fee for H264 on their OS, then Mozilla would also support it.
But, as the article states: "Most users with Windows Vista and earlier do not have an H.264 codec installed.
So for the majority of our users, this doesn't solve any problem.".
Hey, did you read the article ?I'm assuming you are projecting the fact that most people are purely interested in open source.
You are wrong.
Most people want things to just work.But idealism is the "reason for Mozilla to exist.
" as the article states which really begs the question: did you read the article ?
The day Firefox stops *just working* [competitors will win]Oh, h264 video is the definition of a workable web browser?
I don't think so, but also how about "Currently providing H.264 content on the Internet is zero-cost, but after 2010 that will almost certainly change [...] If you just want to put a few videos on your Web site, or add a help video to your Web application, or put a video cut-scene in your Web game, that is probably not something you want to do.
" ?By the way, has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing?Look, just read the article, ok ?
(Sorry no video option available)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884124</id>
	<title>Obligatory ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264340040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about DIRAC????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about DIRAC ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about DIRAC???
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880740</id>
	<title>Re:Ideology meet reality</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1264363020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All of the bitching about the patent/royalty situation ignores the following facts:</p></div></blockquote><p>It ignores them because they are not relevant. We know H264 is a better codec, has hardware support and is currently in use. That's not the issue.</p><p>The issue is that H264 cannot be used without paying protection money to MPEG-LA. No amount of technical or commercial metrics are going to make this legal issue go away. A long as MPEG-LAs patents on the mathematics of video compression in H264 are upheld, it cannot be used for mass video on the web. Unless you want the only video on the web to be that provided by big vendors like Google/Youtube, and the only way to watch it being on the browser of big vendors like Google, Apple and Microsoft?</p><p>Is that what you want? A pay to play web? Because right now, that's what what you're telling me you want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the bitching about the patent/royalty situation ignores the following facts : It ignores them because they are not relevant .
We know H264 is a better codec , has hardware support and is currently in use .
That 's not the issue.The issue is that H264 can not be used without paying protection money to MPEG-LA .
No amount of technical or commercial metrics are going to make this legal issue go away .
A long as MPEG-LAs patents on the mathematics of video compression in H264 are upheld , it can not be used for mass video on the web .
Unless you want the only video on the web to be that provided by big vendors like Google/Youtube , and the only way to watch it being on the browser of big vendors like Google , Apple and Microsoft ? Is that what you want ?
A pay to play web ?
Because right now , that 's what what you 're telling me you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the bitching about the patent/royalty situation ignores the following facts:It ignores them because they are not relevant.
We know H264 is a better codec, has hardware support and is currently in use.
That's not the issue.The issue is that H264 cannot be used without paying protection money to MPEG-LA.
No amount of technical or commercial metrics are going to make this legal issue go away.
A long as MPEG-LAs patents on the mathematics of video compression in H264 are upheld, it cannot be used for mass video on the web.
Unless you want the only video on the web to be that provided by big vendors like Google/Youtube, and the only way to watch it being on the browser of big vendors like Google, Apple and Microsoft?Is that what you want?
A pay to play web?
Because right now, that's what what you're telling me you want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>FrostedWheat</author>
	<datestamp>1264352160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of your arguments are irrelevant if the licensing issue can't be solved. Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing, no matter how good it looks. (And I agree with you, H.264 does looks good) Their choice is basically:</p><ul>
<li>MPEG-1: ancient and horribly outdated. (And may yet be covered by patents?)</li><li>Theora is <i>good enough</i> and much easier on the CPU than Dirac or H.264.</li><li>Dirac is (for now) a poor performer at the typical resolutions and bitrates used on the net.</li></ul><p>Theora is the best of these options. It doesn't matter how good H.264 looks, it's simply <b>impossible</b> for Mozilla to use it without dealing with the licensing issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of your arguments are irrelevant if the licensing issue ca n't be solved .
Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing , no matter how good it looks .
( And I agree with you , H.264 does looks good ) Their choice is basically : MPEG-1 : ancient and horribly outdated .
( And may yet be covered by patents ?
) Theora is good enough and much easier on the CPU than Dirac or H.264.Dirac is ( for now ) a poor performer at the typical resolutions and bitrates used on the net.Theora is the best of these options .
It does n't matter how good H.264 looks , it 's simply impossible for Mozilla to use it without dealing with the licensing issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of your arguments are irrelevant if the licensing issue can't be solved.
Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing, no matter how good it looks.
(And I agree with you, H.264 does looks good) Their choice is basically:
MPEG-1: ancient and horribly outdated.
(And may yet be covered by patents?
)Theora is good enough and much easier on the CPU than Dirac or H.264.Dirac is (for now) a poor performer at the typical resolutions and bitrates used on the net.Theora is the best of these options.
It doesn't matter how good H.264 looks, it's simply impossible for Mozilla to use it without dealing with the licensing issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883210</id>
	<title>Hack some JS to replace the video</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1264334400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone should make a greasemonkey script that replaces the H.blah thing with mpeg or flv - whichever Firefox supports. The tricky thing would be to fake browser title (Safari or Chrome) only on youtube sites - since Youtube doesn't really give you the video tag on other things as far as I can see. Faking is possible to change in about:, so maybe someone already wrote an extension to do that on the fly (would need to be modified to do it automatically on *youtube.com* sites), so some sort of mix should be made - I don't really know the limitations of either - perhaps you can do it both in just greasemonkey.<br>Alternatively (and until then), you can use this script: <a href="http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/50771" title="userscripts.org" rel="nofollow">http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/50771</a> [userscripts.org] (it's free software)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should make a greasemonkey script that replaces the H.blah thing with mpeg or flv - whichever Firefox supports .
The tricky thing would be to fake browser title ( Safari or Chrome ) only on youtube sites - since Youtube does n't really give you the video tag on other things as far as I can see .
Faking is possible to change in about : , so maybe someone already wrote an extension to do that on the fly ( would need to be modified to do it automatically on * youtube.com * sites ) , so some sort of mix should be made - I do n't really know the limitations of either - perhaps you can do it both in just greasemonkey.Alternatively ( and until then ) , you can use this script : http : //userscripts.org/scripts/show/50771 [ userscripts.org ] ( it 's free software )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should make a greasemonkey script that replaces the H.blah thing with mpeg or flv - whichever Firefox supports.
The tricky thing would be to fake browser title (Safari or Chrome) only on youtube sites - since Youtube doesn't really give you the video tag on other things as far as I can see.
Faking is possible to change in about:, so maybe someone already wrote an extension to do that on the fly (would need to be modified to do it automatically on *youtube.com* sites), so some sort of mix should be made - I don't really know the limitations of either - perhaps you can do it both in just greasemonkey.Alternatively (and until then), you can use this script: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/50771 [userscripts.org] (it's free software)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30895484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30888654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30888204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30895252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30895178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30891610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30890404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30888590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30909084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30913246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30886734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30889978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30887218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30887714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30887130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30890274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1348251_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30886734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878748
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880918
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878858
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878870
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879574
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881198
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879306
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878928
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880522
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880920
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879848
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882798
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878994
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879062
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878862
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879590
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30895484
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881212
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882328
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879080
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883642
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879146
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880560
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878718
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879230
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894640
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881870
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894672
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878868
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882210
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884448
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879916
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883246
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880380
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881136
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882922
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884404
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30890404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879794
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30890274
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880166
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30887130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880412
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882406
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30888204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879432
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883912
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881634
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883024
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30891610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30913246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30895178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30887218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878738
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30889978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30895252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30884330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30887714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30888590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30909084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30882844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30879588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30894790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30888654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30883714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30881158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1348251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30878682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30885012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1348251.30880428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
