<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_24_221218</id>
	<title>Ursula Le Guin's Petition Against Google Books</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264338780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://ticktickticktickgmailcom/" rel="nofollow">Miracle Jones</a> blogs about the <a href="http://www.fictioncircus.com/news.php?id=504&amp;mode=one">petition against the Google Book Settlement</a> created by science fiction writer Ursula Le Guin, winner of five Hugo awards and six Nebulas. Le Guin is urging professional writers who are opposed to the terms of the settlement to sign  her <a href="http://www.ursulakleguin.com/UKL\_info.html">online petition</a> before the January 28th deadline. From the petition: <i>"The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media. All authors hope for that. But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it. We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Miracle Jones blogs about the petition against the Google Book Settlement created by science fiction writer Ursula Le Guin , winner of five Hugo awards and six Nebulas .
Le Guin is urging professional writers who are opposed to the terms of the settlement to sign her online petition before the January 28th deadline .
From the petition : " The free and open dissemination of information and of literature , as it exists in our Public Libraries , can and should exist in the electronic media .
All authors hope for that .
But we can not have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it .
We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Miracle Jones blogs about the petition against the Google Book Settlement created by science fiction writer Ursula Le Guin, winner of five Hugo awards and six Nebulas.
Le Guin is urging professional writers who are opposed to the terms of the settlement to sign  her online petition before the January 28th deadline.
From the petition: "The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media.
All authors hope for that.
But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.
We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888036</id>
	<title>Re:the parental model</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264420560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To hold on to that relationship too long is unhealthy for everyone involved, including society as a hole.</p></div><p>Thanks God, you haven't misspelled this "society as a whore". Oops.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To hold on to that relationship too long is unhealthy for everyone involved , including society as a hole.Thanks God , you have n't misspelled this " society as a whore " .
Oops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To hold on to that relationship too long is unhealthy for everyone involved, including society as a hole.Thanks God, you haven't misspelled this "society as a whore".
Oops.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30889304</id>
	<title>Re:LeGuin's stance on copyright is so 20th century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264432260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it is pretty clear that excerpts of modest size are allowed most of the time under fair use, but the whole work (even if it is short) becomes <i>a lot</i> more debatable.  There are still occasions when quoting/reproducing an entire work is okay, but these are less common.</p><p>If I was Doctorow, I sure wouldn't have quoted the whole of <a href="http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Note-ChabonAndGenre.html" title="ursulakleguin.com" rel="nofollow">LeGuin's "On Serious Literature"</a> [ursulakleguin.com] story without seeking permission first.  Look at it.  It's pretty long, and what Doctorow did by quoting the whole thing was was therefore pretty dumb.  Just because something is formatted as a "single paragraph" does <i>not</i> automatically mean quoting it is carte blanche okay, and usually if you are going to do that sort of thing (use something in its entirety) you do ask the author.  See, it's this part that bugs me from Doctorow's comment:</p><p>"However, I still believe that my quotation was fair use."</p><p>That's a big HUH? from me.  I'm not a lawyer, but, no, it almost certainly wasn't, and how Doctorow could fail to understand this is beyond my comprehension, especially after he "discussed it with copyright scholars".  Yeah, he's technically right that "the proportion of the work in quotation is one factor in determining fair use, but not the only one", and he's right that "fair use" isn't something that is always clear, but did he ask how likely it would be for *his* use in *this*instance* to qualify for "fair use"?  I bet the same batch of copyright scholars would reply with something like: "It's not impossible, but it has about a snowball's chance in hell".</p><p>I don't think any of this means LeGuin doesn't understand these things or has an archaic understanding of copyright (although I think she is wrong to imply copying an entire work is <i>always</i> not fair use, even if she is probably right in this instance).  I think it means she understands copyright law and common courtesy pretty well, while Doctorow was way off, and she was justifiably miffed with him.  The whole thing is an "I apologize, but still think I was right in the first place" apology.  Not very satisfying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it is pretty clear that excerpts of modest size are allowed most of the time under fair use , but the whole work ( even if it is short ) becomes a lot more debatable .
There are still occasions when quoting/reproducing an entire work is okay , but these are less common.If I was Doctorow , I sure would n't have quoted the whole of LeGuin 's " On Serious Literature " [ ursulakleguin.com ] story without seeking permission first .
Look at it .
It 's pretty long , and what Doctorow did by quoting the whole thing was was therefore pretty dumb .
Just because something is formatted as a " single paragraph " does not automatically mean quoting it is carte blanche okay , and usually if you are going to do that sort of thing ( use something in its entirety ) you do ask the author .
See , it 's this part that bugs me from Doctorow 's comment : " However , I still believe that my quotation was fair use .
" That 's a big HUH ?
from me .
I 'm not a lawyer , but , no , it almost certainly was n't , and how Doctorow could fail to understand this is beyond my comprehension , especially after he " discussed it with copyright scholars " .
Yeah , he 's technically right that " the proportion of the work in quotation is one factor in determining fair use , but not the only one " , and he 's right that " fair use " is n't something that is always clear , but did he ask how likely it would be for * his * use in * this * instance * to qualify for " fair use " ?
I bet the same batch of copyright scholars would reply with something like : " It 's not impossible , but it has about a snowball 's chance in hell " .I do n't think any of this means LeGuin does n't understand these things or has an archaic understanding of copyright ( although I think she is wrong to imply copying an entire work is always not fair use , even if she is probably right in this instance ) .
I think it means she understands copyright law and common courtesy pretty well , while Doctorow was way off , and she was justifiably miffed with him .
The whole thing is an " I apologize , but still think I was right in the first place " apology .
Not very satisfying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it is pretty clear that excerpts of modest size are allowed most of the time under fair use, but the whole work (even if it is short) becomes a lot more debatable.
There are still occasions when quoting/reproducing an entire work is okay, but these are less common.If I was Doctorow, I sure wouldn't have quoted the whole of LeGuin's "On Serious Literature" [ursulakleguin.com] story without seeking permission first.
Look at it.
It's pretty long, and what Doctorow did by quoting the whole thing was was therefore pretty dumb.
Just because something is formatted as a "single paragraph" does not automatically mean quoting it is carte blanche okay, and usually if you are going to do that sort of thing (use something in its entirety) you do ask the author.
See, it's this part that bugs me from Doctorow's comment:"However, I still believe that my quotation was fair use.
"That's a big HUH?
from me.
I'm not a lawyer, but, no, it almost certainly wasn't, and how Doctorow could fail to understand this is beyond my comprehension, especially after he "discussed it with copyright scholars".
Yeah, he's technically right that "the proportion of the work in quotation is one factor in determining fair use, but not the only one", and he's right that "fair use" isn't something that is always clear, but did he ask how likely it would be for *his* use in *this*instance* to qualify for "fair use"?
I bet the same batch of copyright scholars would reply with something like: "It's not impossible, but it has about a snowball's chance in hell".I don't think any of this means LeGuin doesn't understand these things or has an archaic understanding of copyright (although I think she is wrong to imply copying an entire work is always not fair use, even if she is probably right in this instance).
I think it means she understands copyright law and common courtesy pretty well, while Doctorow was way off, and she was justifiably miffed with him.
The whole thing is an "I apologize, but still think I was right in the first place" apology.
Not very satisfying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888044</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Purist</author>
	<datestamp>1264420680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>

What are these "porn mags" you speak of??</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are these " porn mags " you speak of ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

What are these "porn mags" you speak of?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30905918</id>
	<title>Intellectual != Physical property: cheap copying</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264527120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Say I write a dozen books and finally get one published then a day later die in a car accident leaving my family with nothing but the work I spent ten years writing. Are you saying they don't have the right to benefit from my work?</p></div><p>I'm not the same "you", but <em>I</em> am saying that.  Or rather, I'm saying that I'd be perfectly happy if copyright didn't last longer than the life of the author.</p><p>Your family can of course read your book.  They have a right to benefit in that way.  I take it you think your books are beneficial to read; that's why you can get away with charging money for them, right?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should the public benefit but not my family?</p></div><p>Because the benefit the public will gain is larger than the benefit your family will gain.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If my family isn't going to be allowed to benefit from my work then I'd rather do something with my time they are allowed to retain so they can live without going on welfare if I happen to die young.</p></div><p>I'm glad to hear you aren't completely hung up on being a writer.</p><p>Are you raising your kids to be dependent on your ability to provide them with money?  Wouldn't you rather want them to be able to earn a living on their own?  If they are, why is it so important what you can leave them?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should the public have rights over and above the creator?</p></div><p>It doesn't.  The public is giving away its inherent right to copy and (re)distribute information (selectively).</p><p>It does so in order to create a financial incentive for writers, musicians, film makers and software programmers (that's me) to do work which benefits the public.</p><p>The public does this (in the ideal case) based on an evaluation which says that the freedoms and right given up are less valuable than the work created by the incentive put in place by giving up the freedoms and rights.</p><p>If you don't want to play ball, you're free to not write books.  You're free to tell us exactly which restrictions you want us to place on ourselves for you to write books.  We're free to listen, or not, depending on what we feel like.  But you're not the one to tell us which rights we can and can't exercise.  We, the public, decides what our rights are.  As a member of the public, you're of course welcome to participate in this decision process, but don't expect your wishes to have a disproportionate influence.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If I built investment houses for a living there wouldn't be a debate about taking them away from my family after I died.</p></div><p>And if you built bit strings, there wouldn't be a debate about going into your house a deleting the bit strings from your hard drive.  And there isn't.</p><p>And if you built houses, there wouldn't be a debate about building identical houses, not when you're alive, and not when you're dead.  And there isn't.</p><p>See, because we have efficient copying machinery for the things you produce, there's a value/cost disparity: the cost of production is almost independent of the number of copies.  The value is almost linear in the number of copies (not everybody who reads your books enjoys it equally, but more copies means more enjoyment).  Thus, the most valuable use of a book you've written is to make as many copies as possible, up to the point where the value is less than the cost of the electricity and disk space used to copy and store the book.  (Note that we can't copy houses efficiently: it takes a lot of labour.  That's why they're different.)</p><p>Do you want to destroy things of value?  Do you want to sabotage the public's wealth?  Why?  For your own benefit?  I want to dump my poisonous radioactive waste in the public river because it's cheap.  Should I be allowed to do that?  Why is it that nuclear power plant operations are so discriminated against?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say I write a dozen books and finally get one published then a day later die in a car accident leaving my family with nothing but the work I spent ten years writing .
Are you saying they do n't have the right to benefit from my work ? I 'm not the same " you " , but I am saying that .
Or rather , I 'm saying that I 'd be perfectly happy if copyright did n't last longer than the life of the author.Your family can of course read your book .
They have a right to benefit in that way .
I take it you think your books are beneficial to read ; that 's why you can get away with charging money for them , right ? Why should the public benefit but not my family ? Because the benefit the public will gain is larger than the benefit your family will gain.If my family is n't going to be allowed to benefit from my work then I 'd rather do something with my time they are allowed to retain so they can live without going on welfare if I happen to die young.I 'm glad to hear you are n't completely hung up on being a writer.Are you raising your kids to be dependent on your ability to provide them with money ?
Would n't you rather want them to be able to earn a living on their own ?
If they are , why is it so important what you can leave them ? Why should the public have rights over and above the creator ? It does n't .
The public is giving away its inherent right to copy and ( re ) distribute information ( selectively ) .It does so in order to create a financial incentive for writers , musicians , film makers and software programmers ( that 's me ) to do work which benefits the public.The public does this ( in the ideal case ) based on an evaluation which says that the freedoms and right given up are less valuable than the work created by the incentive put in place by giving up the freedoms and rights.If you do n't want to play ball , you 're free to not write books .
You 're free to tell us exactly which restrictions you want us to place on ourselves for you to write books .
We 're free to listen , or not , depending on what we feel like .
But you 're not the one to tell us which rights we can and ca n't exercise .
We , the public , decides what our rights are .
As a member of the public , you 're of course welcome to participate in this decision process , but do n't expect your wishes to have a disproportionate influence.If I built investment houses for a living there would n't be a debate about taking them away from my family after I died.And if you built bit strings , there would n't be a debate about going into your house a deleting the bit strings from your hard drive .
And there is n't.And if you built houses , there would n't be a debate about building identical houses , not when you 're alive , and not when you 're dead .
And there is n't.See , because we have efficient copying machinery for the things you produce , there 's a value/cost disparity : the cost of production is almost independent of the number of copies .
The value is almost linear in the number of copies ( not everybody who reads your books enjoys it equally , but more copies means more enjoyment ) .
Thus , the most valuable use of a book you 've written is to make as many copies as possible , up to the point where the value is less than the cost of the electricity and disk space used to copy and store the book .
( Note that we ca n't copy houses efficiently : it takes a lot of labour .
That 's why they 're different .
) Do you want to destroy things of value ?
Do you want to sabotage the public 's wealth ?
Why ? For your own benefit ?
I want to dump my poisonous radioactive waste in the public river because it 's cheap .
Should I be allowed to do that ?
Why is it that nuclear power plant operations are so discriminated against ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say I write a dozen books and finally get one published then a day later die in a car accident leaving my family with nothing but the work I spent ten years writing.
Are you saying they don't have the right to benefit from my work?I'm not the same "you", but I am saying that.
Or rather, I'm saying that I'd be perfectly happy if copyright didn't last longer than the life of the author.Your family can of course read your book.
They have a right to benefit in that way.
I take it you think your books are beneficial to read; that's why you can get away with charging money for them, right?Why should the public benefit but not my family?Because the benefit the public will gain is larger than the benefit your family will gain.If my family isn't going to be allowed to benefit from my work then I'd rather do something with my time they are allowed to retain so they can live without going on welfare if I happen to die young.I'm glad to hear you aren't completely hung up on being a writer.Are you raising your kids to be dependent on your ability to provide them with money?
Wouldn't you rather want them to be able to earn a living on their own?
If they are, why is it so important what you can leave them?Why should the public have rights over and above the creator?It doesn't.
The public is giving away its inherent right to copy and (re)distribute information (selectively).It does so in order to create a financial incentive for writers, musicians, film makers and software programmers (that's me) to do work which benefits the public.The public does this (in the ideal case) based on an evaluation which says that the freedoms and right given up are less valuable than the work created by the incentive put in place by giving up the freedoms and rights.If you don't want to play ball, you're free to not write books.
You're free to tell us exactly which restrictions you want us to place on ourselves for you to write books.
We're free to listen, or not, depending on what we feel like.
But you're not the one to tell us which rights we can and can't exercise.
We, the public, decides what our rights are.
As a member of the public, you're of course welcome to participate in this decision process, but don't expect your wishes to have a disproportionate influence.If I built investment houses for a living there wouldn't be a debate about taking them away from my family after I died.And if you built bit strings, there wouldn't be a debate about going into your house a deleting the bit strings from your hard drive.
And there isn't.And if you built houses, there wouldn't be a debate about building identical houses, not when you're alive, and not when you're dead.
And there isn't.See, because we have efficient copying machinery for the things you produce, there's a value/cost disparity: the cost of production is almost independent of the number of copies.
The value is almost linear in the number of copies (not everybody who reads your books enjoys it equally, but more copies means more enjoyment).
Thus, the most valuable use of a book you've written is to make as many copies as possible, up to the point where the value is less than the cost of the electricity and disk space used to copy and store the book.
(Note that we can't copy houses efficiently: it takes a lot of labour.
That's why they're different.
)Do you want to destroy things of value?
Do you want to sabotage the public's wealth?
Why?  For your own benefit?
I want to dump my poisonous radioactive waste in the public river because it's cheap.
Should I be allowed to do that?
Why is it that nuclear power plant operations are so discriminated against?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891538</id>
	<title>Re:Bounty System.</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1264440180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting idea, but how would you guarantee the refund? Sounds like this needs an administering body to hold the funds in trust. Also, it only works for writers who can live on other assets or income whilst writing their first book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting idea , but how would you guarantee the refund ?
Sounds like this needs an administering body to hold the funds in trust .
Also , it only works for writers who can live on other assets or income whilst writing their first book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting idea, but how would you guarantee the refund?
Sounds like this needs an administering body to hold the funds in trust.
Also, it only works for writers who can live on other assets or income whilst writing their first book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884680</id>
	<title>Re:Her statement seems inconsistent.</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1264344300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!</em> </p><p>Yes they do. If the library purchases one copy of a book, they can only loan out one copy of that book. They can't take it into the back room and make thirty copies of it. That's because... wait for it... the author and/or publisher maintains copyright control of that book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries !
Yes they do .
If the library purchases one copy of a book , they can only loan out one copy of that book .
They ca n't take it into the back room and make thirty copies of it .
That 's because... wait for it... the author and/or publisher maintains copyright control of that book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!
Yes they do.
If the library purchases one copy of a book, they can only loan out one copy of that book.
They can't take it into the back room and make thirty copies of it.
That's because... wait for it... the author and/or publisher maintains copyright control of that book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884878</id>
	<title>Re:Her statement seems inconsistent.</title>
	<author>msobkow</author>
	<datestamp>1264345380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The great inconsistency I see is that when a book is lent out through a library, only <i>n</i> copies can be lent out at a time, depending on how many copies the library bought.  But with electronic distribution, any number of copies can be "lent" at a time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The great inconsistency I see is that when a book is lent out through a library , only n copies can be lent out at a time , depending on how many copies the library bought .
But with electronic distribution , any number of copies can be " lent " at a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The great inconsistency I see is that when a book is lent out through a library, only n copies can be lent out at a time, depending on how many copies the library bought.
But with electronic distribution, any number of copies can be "lent" at a time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884458</id>
	<title>Which corporations does Le Guin mean?</title>
	<author>onionman</author>
	<datestamp>1264342680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it. We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control."</p><p>So, which corporation is more evil when it comes to copyright: Disney or Google?  Seems to me that Le Guin is in effect supporting the Disney model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But we can not have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it .
We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control .
" So , which corporation is more evil when it comes to copyright : Disney or Google ?
Seems to me that Le Guin is in effect supporting the Disney model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.
We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control.
"So, which corporation is more evil when it comes to copyright: Disney or Google?
Seems to me that Le Guin is in effect supporting the Disney model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885494</id>
	<title>Re:Bounty System.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264350540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Mr. King tried this.</p><p>And failed to raise enough money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Mr. King tried this.And failed to raise enough money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Mr. King tried this.And failed to raise enough money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885266</id>
	<title>Re:The French would disagree</title>
	<author>Enter the Shoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1264348260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone.</i> </p><p>The French would disagree with this. They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century.  I don't know why the French are this way, but given that they have invented croissants, mayonaisse and champagne, I'm inclined to believe them.</p><p>So it looks like the French are our new political football in America.  Liberals loved the French when they were anti-war, and now, here we are, conservatives, saying, "hey, look at how great France is", in order to support copyrights.</p><p>Oh France! Some Americans will always hate you, but America as a whole will always love you!</p></div><p>Ironically enough the French stole the croissant from the Austrians - perhaps Vienna should lodge a DMCA takedown notice against every patisserie in Paris.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone .
The French would disagree with this .
They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century .
I do n't know why the French are this way , but given that they have invented croissants , mayonaisse and champagne , I 'm inclined to believe them.So it looks like the French are our new political football in America .
Liberals loved the French when they were anti-war , and now , here we are , conservatives , saying , " hey , look at how great France is " , in order to support copyrights.Oh France !
Some Americans will always hate you , but America as a whole will always love you ! Ironically enough the French stole the croissant from the Austrians - perhaps Vienna should lodge a DMCA takedown notice against every patisserie in Paris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone.
The French would disagree with this.
They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century.
I don't know why the French are this way, but given that they have invented croissants, mayonaisse and champagne, I'm inclined to believe them.So it looks like the French are our new political football in America.
Liberals loved the French when they were anti-war, and now, here we are, conservatives, saying, "hey, look at how great France is", in order to support copyrights.Oh France!
Some Americans will always hate you, but America as a whole will always love you!Ironically enough the French stole the croissant from the Austrians - perhaps Vienna should lodge a DMCA takedown notice against every patisserie in Paris.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885638</id>
	<title>Re:Her statement seems inconsistent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264351500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that hard to understand.  She's saying that electronic distribution should allow the same kind of freedom as a regular book in a library (e.g., browsing or loaning books), but also the same kind of protections (i.e. someone can't walk in the door of the library and legally make a copy of the whole thing, or even take it home and do the same thing, without violating copyright).</p><p>It's meant to be a paradox with a proper balance in between somewhere.  Copyright has always been like that.  The challenge is doing it when the material is digital, which tends to skew things.  It's easy to copy, and the technological controls on copying are dumb (they hinder legal activities that are allowed for paper, such as fair use and lending).</p><p>I think people are mistakenly thinking the contradiction shouldn't be there.  Yes, it should.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that hard to understand .
She 's saying that electronic distribution should allow the same kind of freedom as a regular book in a library ( e.g. , browsing or loaning books ) , but also the same kind of protections ( i.e .
someone ca n't walk in the door of the library and legally make a copy of the whole thing , or even take it home and do the same thing , without violating copyright ) .It 's meant to be a paradox with a proper balance in between somewhere .
Copyright has always been like that .
The challenge is doing it when the material is digital , which tends to skew things .
It 's easy to copy , and the technological controls on copying are dumb ( they hinder legal activities that are allowed for paper , such as fair use and lending ) .I think people are mistakenly thinking the contradiction should n't be there .
Yes , it should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that hard to understand.
She's saying that electronic distribution should allow the same kind of freedom as a regular book in a library (e.g., browsing or loaning books), but also the same kind of protections (i.e.
someone can't walk in the door of the library and legally make a copy of the whole thing, or even take it home and do the same thing, without violating copyright).It's meant to be a paradox with a proper balance in between somewhere.
Copyright has always been like that.
The challenge is doing it when the material is digital, which tends to skew things.
It's easy to copy, and the technological controls on copying are dumb (they hinder legal activities that are allowed for paper, such as fair use and lending).I think people are mistakenly thinking the contradiction shouldn't be there.
Yes, it should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884926</id>
	<title>Re:Doublethink</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264345740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She is a writer. She is trying to sound like she's being reasonable while being unreasonable.</p><p>This ends up sounding like nonsense to anyone who pays attention but something deep and insightful to anyone who's not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She is a writer .
She is trying to sound like she 's being reasonable while being unreasonable.This ends up sounding like nonsense to anyone who pays attention but something deep and insightful to anyone who 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She is a writer.
She is trying to sound like she's being reasonable while being unreasonable.This ends up sounding like nonsense to anyone who pays attention but something deep and insightful to anyone who's not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887994</id>
	<title>Re:Bounty System.</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264420140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Than you would end up with something cheap and stupid, comics alike. "Will MooseMan escape from the Egyptian tomb, where he was trapped by Evil Genius? Pay 4.99$ and find out!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Than you would end up with something cheap and stupid , comics alike .
" Will MooseMan escape from the Egyptian tomb , where he was trapped by Evil Genius ?
Pay 4.99 $ and find out !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Than you would end up with something cheap and stupid, comics alike.
"Will MooseMan escape from the Egyptian tomb, where he was trapped by Evil Genius?
Pay 4.99$ and find out!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885324</id>
	<title>Re:Uhh, some of the best benefits are NO control..</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1264348860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Part of the beauty of the library is the copyright owner/author/interest holder is NOT able to control access to the work. How many publishers would love to say "this book is for retail sale only: all lending is prohibited" on all their books?</p></div><p>This is the same mistake another poster made. Go to any library and try to make a photocopy of any of their volumes in its entirety. They will stop you, because they are going along with the copyright scheme where the owner <i>controls the right of making copies</i>, not who is holding on to an individual volume. But of course, that same library is very happy to lend you any of their copies! <br> <br>Books are more like CDROMs than internet downloads. If I give you a CDROM, I don't have it any more -- I haven't made a copy of it. It sucks that this must be explained to the slashdot crowd, but here we are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the beauty of the library is the copyright owner/author/interest holder is NOT able to control access to the work .
How many publishers would love to say " this book is for retail sale only : all lending is prohibited " on all their books ? This is the same mistake another poster made .
Go to any library and try to make a photocopy of any of their volumes in its entirety .
They will stop you , because they are going along with the copyright scheme where the owner controls the right of making copies , not who is holding on to an individual volume .
But of course , that same library is very happy to lend you any of their copies !
Books are more like CDROMs than internet downloads .
If I give you a CDROM , I do n't have it any more -- I have n't made a copy of it .
It sucks that this must be explained to the slashdot crowd , but here we are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the beauty of the library is the copyright owner/author/interest holder is NOT able to control access to the work.
How many publishers would love to say "this book is for retail sale only: all lending is prohibited" on all their books?This is the same mistake another poster made.
Go to any library and try to make a photocopy of any of their volumes in its entirety.
They will stop you, because they are going along with the copyright scheme where the owner controls the right of making copies, not who is holding on to an individual volume.
But of course, that same library is very happy to lend you any of their copies!
Books are more like CDROMs than internet downloads.
If I give you a CDROM, I don't have it any more -- I haven't made a copy of it.
It sucks that this must be explained to the slashdot crowd, but here we are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30906846</id>
	<title>Define 'publish'.</title>
	<author>minstrelmike</author>
	<datestamp>1264530780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If someone owns a copyright to a book but doesn't make it available to readers, then they aren't actually 'publishing' the book. They are definitely controlling access like Ursula says, but they aren't helping out the thousands of authors google planned to actually make available to readers for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone owns a copyright to a book but does n't make it available to readers , then they are n't actually 'publishing ' the book .
They are definitely controlling access like Ursula says , but they are n't helping out the thousands of authors google planned to actually make available to readers for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone owns a copyright to a book but doesn't make it available to readers, then they aren't actually 'publishing' the book.
They are definitely controlling access like Ursula says, but they aren't helping out the thousands of authors google planned to actually make available to readers for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886376</id>
	<title>Re:huh?</title>
	<author>Cyberllama</author>
	<datestamp>1264357860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post had good arguments, sadly I couldn't see past the fact that you were not capitalizing the first letter of each sentence. I felt as though perhaps you should have been arguing passionately for ponies, rather than copyright reform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post had good arguments , sadly I could n't see past the fact that you were not capitalizing the first letter of each sentence .
I felt as though perhaps you should have been arguing passionately for ponies , rather than copyright reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post had good arguments, sadly I couldn't see past the fact that you were not capitalizing the first letter of each sentence.
I felt as though perhaps you should have been arguing passionately for ponies, rather than copyright reform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885314</id>
	<title>Re:Bounty System.</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1264348740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't Stephen King try this, and end up not finishing the story? I may be mis-remembering the situation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Stephen King try this , and end up not finishing the story ?
I may be mis-remembering the situation .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Stephen King try this, and end up not finishing the story?
I may be mis-remembering the situation ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30893704</id>
	<title>Re:Future of Literature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264448580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Clearly Authors need to be paid otherwise the profession would disappear as we know it.</p></div><p>Yes, clearly writing did not exist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">before copyright</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">nobody publishes writing for free</a> [wikipedia.org] today. Personally, I never <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">write</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://arxiv.org/" title="arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">anything</a> [arxiv.org] without demanding to be paid for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly Authors need to be paid otherwise the profession would disappear as we know it.Yes , clearly writing did not exist before copyright [ wikipedia.org ] and nobody publishes writing for free [ wikipedia.org ] today .
Personally , I never write [ wikipedia.org ] anything [ arxiv.org ] without demanding to be paid for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly Authors need to be paid otherwise the profession would disappear as we know it.Yes, clearly writing did not exist before copyright [wikipedia.org] and nobody publishes writing for free [wikipedia.org] today.
Personally, I never write [wikipedia.org] anything [arxiv.org] without demanding to be paid for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888288</id>
	<title>Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264424040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ROTFLMAO!! That is, without a doubt, the funniest troll I've ever read on Slashdot! Good on you, even if you are going to get moded into oblivion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ROTFLMAO ! !
That is , without a doubt , the funniest troll I 've ever read on Slashdot !
Good on you , even if you are going to get moded into oblivion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ROTFLMAO!!
That is, without a doubt, the funniest troll I've ever read on Slashdot!
Good on you, even if you are going to get moded into oblivion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885068</id>
	<title>Google is a BUSINESS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264346700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and libraries are not. Google is trying to make money off of someone else's work without paying that person. Libraries are buying the book and then loaning it out for the sake of information, not for profit.<br>Google can either give money to the authors or a non-profit can be set up, run by the gov even, to do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and libraries are not .
Google is trying to make money off of someone else 's work without paying that person .
Libraries are buying the book and then loaning it out for the sake of information , not for profit.Google can either give money to the authors or a non-profit can be set up , run by the gov even , to do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and libraries are not.
Google is trying to make money off of someone else's work without paying that person.
Libraries are buying the book and then loaning it out for the sake of information, not for profit.Google can either give money to the authors or a non-profit can be set up, run by the gov even, to do the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30951722</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>loneDreamer</author>
	<datestamp>1264789320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly why they coined "intellectual property", so you would think it actually is property and make that same argument.
Bottom line, ideas and tales were not propery, and IMHO they shouldn't be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why they coined " intellectual property " , so you would think it actually is property and make that same argument .
Bottom line , ideas and tales were not propery , and IMHO they should n't be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why they coined "intellectual property", so you would think it actually is property and make that same argument.
Bottom line, ideas and tales were not propery, and IMHO they shouldn't be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885298</id>
	<title>Re:Doublethink</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1264348680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You live in the US? Then why ask that question?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You live in the US ?
Then why ask that question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You live in the US?
Then why ask that question?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886798</id>
	<title>Without getting into the meat...</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1264362720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without getting into whether what she really means is right or wrong, she contradicts herself and she is not being genuine:<br> <br>"But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it."<br> <br>Simply speaking, if something is controlled by <i>any</i> entity, it is thereby not free and open in the truest sense of all words involved.  Controlled != free.  What she really means is, "I'm trying to appeal to the sense freedom and openness in many communities but I really want to be sure I can always continue to make money on my books."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without getting into whether what she really means is right or wrong , she contradicts herself and she is not being genuine : " But we can not have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it .
" Simply speaking , if something is controlled by any entity , it is thereby not free and open in the truest sense of all words involved .
Controlled ! = free .
What she really means is , " I 'm trying to appeal to the sense freedom and openness in many communities but I really want to be sure I can always continue to make money on my books .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without getting into whether what she really means is right or wrong, she contradicts herself and she is not being genuine: "But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.
" Simply speaking, if something is controlled by any entity, it is thereby not free and open in the truest sense of all words involved.
Controlled != free.
What she really means is, "I'm trying to appeal to the sense freedom and openness in many communities but I really want to be sure I can always continue to make money on my books.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884862</id>
	<title>Does anyone understand what she is trying to say?</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1264345260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I am missing some part of the argument. What she is saying makes no sense.<p><div class="quote"><p>The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media. All authors hope for that.</p></div><p>
So she wants to share everyone to have access to her books and ideas. I think thats awesome and wonderful.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it. We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control.</p></div><p>
What? This so now sounds like the RIAA. Your in a catch 22. You can't control information once you free it from its box. It seems like you want your cake and eat it too.<br>
That said I agree that the Google deal is not legit in any shape or form. You can't just force a party into an agreement especially how this one is worded. I hope this might be a turning point where Google is forcing the world to look back onto itself and realize how absurd the copyright laws are in their current state. And eventually copyright reform might occur, but I doubt that will ever happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I am missing some part of the argument .
What she is saying makes no sense.The free and open dissemination of information and of literature , as it exists in our Public Libraries , can and should exist in the electronic media .
All authors hope for that .
So she wants to share everyone to have access to her books and ideas .
I think thats awesome and wonderful .
But we can not have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it .
We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control .
What ? This so now sounds like the RIAA .
Your in a catch 22 .
You ca n't control information once you free it from its box .
It seems like you want your cake and eat it too .
That said I agree that the Google deal is not legit in any shape or form .
You ca n't just force a party into an agreement especially how this one is worded .
I hope this might be a turning point where Google is forcing the world to look back onto itself and realize how absurd the copyright laws are in their current state .
And eventually copyright reform might occur , but I doubt that will ever happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I am missing some part of the argument.
What she is saying makes no sense.The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media.
All authors hope for that.
So she wants to share everyone to have access to her books and ideas.
I think thats awesome and wonderful.
But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.
We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control.
What? This so now sounds like the RIAA.
Your in a catch 22.
You can't control information once you free it from its box.
It seems like you want your cake and eat it too.
That said I agree that the Google deal is not legit in any shape or form.
You can't just force a party into an agreement especially how this one is worded.
I hope this might be a turning point where Google is forcing the world to look back onto itself and realize how absurd the copyright laws are in their current state.
And eventually copyright reform might occur, but I doubt that will ever happen.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885520</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264350720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?</p></div><p>If you do work-for-hire (most people do), after you die, you stop working, so you stop producing value, so you are no longer paid, and nothing gets passed on to your survivors. An author of a book or other creative work which continues to sell is still generating value, so their survivors would have a claim. They're sort of working from the grave, so to speak.

<br> <br>Certain kinds of other benefits continue to be given to the survivors after death of the original recipient, such as retirement accounts. Are you against that also?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I die , my kids wo n't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary , why should writers be any different ? If you do work-for-hire ( most people do ) , after you die , you stop working , so you stop producing value , so you are no longer paid , and nothing gets passed on to your survivors .
An author of a book or other creative work which continues to sell is still generating value , so their survivors would have a claim .
They 're sort of working from the grave , so to speak .
Certain kinds of other benefits continue to be given to the survivors after death of the original recipient , such as retirement accounts .
Are you against that also ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?If you do work-for-hire (most people do), after you die, you stop working, so you stop producing value, so you are no longer paid, and nothing gets passed on to your survivors.
An author of a book or other creative work which continues to sell is still generating value, so their survivors would have a claim.
They're sort of working from the grave, so to speak.
Certain kinds of other benefits continue to be given to the survivors after death of the original recipient, such as retirement accounts.
Are you against that also?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887922</id>
	<title>Basically, she is saying</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264419180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hey, guys, I used to be a hippie too, but now I've grown up and I want my f***ing money"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hey , guys , I used to be a hippie too , but now I 've grown up and I want my f * * * ing money "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hey, guys, I used to be a hippie too, but now I've grown up and I want my f***ing money"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888376</id>
	<title>Re:Bounty System.</title>
	<author>MotorMachineMercenar</author>
	<datestamp>1264424820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could do that with Kickstarter <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/" title="kickstarter.com">http://www.kickstarter.com/</a> [kickstarter.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could do that with Kickstarter http : //www.kickstarter.com/ [ kickstarter.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could do that with Kickstarter http://www.kickstarter.com/ [kickstarter.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885534</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264350780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"loosing"?  And you're a writer, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" loosing " ?
And you 're a writer , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"loosing"?
And you're a writer, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885764</id>
	<title>Irony or hypocrisy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264352340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Le Guin is disturbed by the settlement's attempt to shift Google Books' right to distribute works from opt-in to opt-out.</p><p>And yet in her new petition letter against that act, she is automatically appending as "signatories" all of the authors who had joined her earlier list of authors opposing the settlement, unless they opt-out <b>by tomorrow</b>.</p><p>It seems she's quite willing to shift other authors right to sign petitions from opt-in to opt-out when it suits her, so obviously she's not unfamiliar with the impracticalities of tracking them all down to grant permission for book sales, petitions, or anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Le Guin is disturbed by the settlement 's attempt to shift Google Books ' right to distribute works from opt-in to opt-out.And yet in her new petition letter against that act , she is automatically appending as " signatories " all of the authors who had joined her earlier list of authors opposing the settlement , unless they opt-out by tomorrow.It seems she 's quite willing to shift other authors right to sign petitions from opt-in to opt-out when it suits her , so obviously she 's not unfamiliar with the impracticalities of tracking them all down to grant permission for book sales , petitions , or anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Le Guin is disturbed by the settlement's attempt to shift Google Books' right to distribute works from opt-in to opt-out.And yet in her new petition letter against that act, she is automatically appending as "signatories" all of the authors who had joined her earlier list of authors opposing the settlement, unless they opt-out by tomorrow.It seems she's quite willing to shift other authors right to sign petitions from opt-in to opt-out when it suits her, so obviously she's not unfamiliar with the impracticalities of tracking them all down to grant permission for book sales, petitions, or anything else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885128</id>
	<title>Le Guin is now the Lars Ulrich of fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264347180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about control! No wait... fans, it's all about the fans!</p><p>Now where did I put my cane?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about control !
No wait... fans , it 's all about the fans ! Now where did I put my cane ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about control!
No wait... fans, it's all about the fans!Now where did I put my cane?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30890452</id>
	<title>Discrimination</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1264436640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Le Guin is descriminating against those of us who live in rural areas where libraries are not available. It is an hour's travel to get to the nearest library and that is a great way to pickup disease - there be humans there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Le Guin is descriminating against those of us who live in rural areas where libraries are not available .
It is an hour 's travel to get to the nearest library and that is a great way to pickup disease - there be humans there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Le Guin is descriminating against those of us who live in rural areas where libraries are not available.
It is an hour's travel to get to the nearest library and that is a great way to pickup disease - there be humans there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887344</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264411860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case?<br>
Book publishers would end up with their own mercenary task forces to get access to popular works.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Not really. Definitely not as fast and open as you think. Corporations still have to get around that pesky murder charge. the bribes and legal wrangling will make it economically infeasible to simply kill every author to get their works, besides this once they are dead all your competitors and that bothersome general public can copy the works willy nilly. No this will not do, the corporations must continue to co-opt copyright so the artists has no rights.<br> <br>

Your point has some merit, Copyright never ended with the authors death when it was made in the late 1800's due to this kind of threat when deaths weren't investigated. But copyright terms need to be bought back down to reasonable limits, 15 years or so regardless of the authors pulse. This life+75 has done more damage to the creation of new art and will continue to do damage until we get beat copyright down to a reasonable limit.<br> <br>

Further more, I think we should prohibit creators from selling their works and prevent media or holding corporations (perhaps even all corps) from owning a work. Instead we should allow a creator to license works to a production company, exclusive or not with the production company taking no more then 60\% gross revenue and a cost sharing along the same percentage as the profit sharing (minus any loans, can be paid back from the authors share, as per usual) for a term specified by the Author not exceeding the copyright period. The increased profit for the creator should offset any additional costs for them. Details for this may need refining but you get the idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case ?
Book publishers would end up with their own mercenary task forces to get access to popular works .
Not really .
Definitely not as fast and open as you think .
Corporations still have to get around that pesky murder charge .
the bribes and legal wrangling will make it economically infeasible to simply kill every author to get their works , besides this once they are dead all your competitors and that bothersome general public can copy the works willy nilly .
No this will not do , the corporations must continue to co-opt copyright so the artists has no rights .
Your point has some merit , Copyright never ended with the authors death when it was made in the late 1800 's due to this kind of threat when deaths were n't investigated .
But copyright terms need to be bought back down to reasonable limits , 15 years or so regardless of the authors pulse .
This life + 75 has done more damage to the creation of new art and will continue to do damage until we get beat copyright down to a reasonable limit .
Further more , I think we should prohibit creators from selling their works and prevent media or holding corporations ( perhaps even all corps ) from owning a work .
Instead we should allow a creator to license works to a production company , exclusive or not with the production company taking no more then 60 \ % gross revenue and a cost sharing along the same percentage as the profit sharing ( minus any loans , can be paid back from the authors share , as per usual ) for a term specified by the Author not exceeding the copyright period .
The increased profit for the creator should offset any additional costs for them .
Details for this may need refining but you get the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case?
Book publishers would end up with their own mercenary task forces to get access to popular works.
Not really.
Definitely not as fast and open as you think.
Corporations still have to get around that pesky murder charge.
the bribes and legal wrangling will make it economically infeasible to simply kill every author to get their works, besides this once they are dead all your competitors and that bothersome general public can copy the works willy nilly.
No this will not do, the corporations must continue to co-opt copyright so the artists has no rights.
Your point has some merit, Copyright never ended with the authors death when it was made in the late 1800's due to this kind of threat when deaths weren't investigated.
But copyright terms need to be bought back down to reasonable limits, 15 years or so regardless of the authors pulse.
This life+75 has done more damage to the creation of new art and will continue to do damage until we get beat copyright down to a reasonable limit.
Further more, I think we should prohibit creators from selling their works and prevent media or holding corporations (perhaps even all corps) from owning a work.
Instead we should allow a creator to license works to a production company, exclusive or not with the production company taking no more then 60\% gross revenue and a cost sharing along the same percentage as the profit sharing (minus any loans, can be paid back from the authors share, as per usual) for a term specified by the Author not exceeding the copyright period.
The increased profit for the creator should offset any additional costs for them.
Details for this may need refining but you get the idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886418</id>
	<title>Re:Uhh, some of the best benefits are NO control..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264358280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty sure Google has offered to share their entire library with everyone and anyone, keeping no advantage to themselves whatsoever despite the excessive costs going into the scanning. Obviously it would be better if this were codified by the law, but the de facto result seems to be the right one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty sure Google has offered to share their entire library with everyone and anyone , keeping no advantage to themselves whatsoever despite the excessive costs going into the scanning .
Obviously it would be better if this were codified by the law , but the de facto result seems to be the right one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty sure Google has offered to share their entire library with everyone and anyone, keeping no advantage to themselves whatsoever despite the excessive costs going into the scanning.
Obviously it would be better if this were codified by the law, but the de facto result seems to be the right one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887734</id>
	<title>Re:LeGuin's stance on copyright is so 20th century</title>
	<author>Shimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1264417140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>LeGuin wrote some very interesting books.  Unfortunately her stance on copyright is a bit too 20th centure to my taste.</p></div><p>Well, Doctorow is too much of a jerk for mine. He reproduced another's writers work <i>in full</i> without permission, and can't even manage a proper apology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>LeGuin wrote some very interesting books .
Unfortunately her stance on copyright is a bit too 20th centure to my taste.Well , Doctorow is too much of a jerk for mine .
He reproduced another 's writers work in full without permission , and ca n't even manage a proper apology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LeGuin wrote some very interesting books.
Unfortunately her stance on copyright is a bit too 20th centure to my taste.Well, Doctorow is too much of a jerk for mine.
He reproduced another's writers work in full without permission, and can't even manage a proper apology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886666</id>
	<title>Re:Limited times</title>
	<author>peacefinder</author>
	<datestamp>1264361220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She is on record as saying she does not believe in perpetual copyright, and has derided the Sonny Bono act as so outrageous as to actually weaken copyright in the long run.* It is probably worth considering, however, that she is <em>currently still alive</em>, and thus has a pretty clear and legitimate interest in the way her wholly-owned work is used.</p><p>She states that she thinks the Author's Guild has no business negotiating away her rights to her work given that she's not a member. That is not at all the same thing as supporting perpetual copyright.</p><p>[*: And she's very much correct, no? With de facto perpetual copyright in place, who is inclined to respect any copyright any more?]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She is on record as saying she does not believe in perpetual copyright , and has derided the Sonny Bono act as so outrageous as to actually weaken copyright in the long run .
* It is probably worth considering , however , that she is currently still alive , and thus has a pretty clear and legitimate interest in the way her wholly-owned work is used.She states that she thinks the Author 's Guild has no business negotiating away her rights to her work given that she 's not a member .
That is not at all the same thing as supporting perpetual copyright .
[ * : And she 's very much correct , no ?
With de facto perpetual copyright in place , who is inclined to respect any copyright any more ?
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She is on record as saying she does not believe in perpetual copyright, and has derided the Sonny Bono act as so outrageous as to actually weaken copyright in the long run.
* It is probably worth considering, however, that she is currently still alive, and thus has a pretty clear and legitimate interest in the way her wholly-owned work is used.She states that she thinks the Author's Guild has no business negotiating away her rights to her work given that she's not a member.
That is not at all the same thing as supporting perpetual copyright.
[*: And she's very much correct, no?
With de facto perpetual copyright in place, who is inclined to respect any copyright any more?
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30890998</id>
	<title>Re:The French would disagree</title>
	<author>SecondHand</author>
	<datestamp>1264438560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>French "droit patrimonial" gives an exclusive right that runs until <a href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire\_du\_droit\_d'auteur" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">70 years after the death of the author</a> [wikipedia.org]. If wikipedia is correct, it says that in the <a href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propri\%C3\%A9t\%C3\%A9\_litt\%C3\%A9raire\_et\_artistique#R.C3.A9gime\_par\_pays" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">US</a> [wikipedia.org] it's: 70 years after the death, or 95 years after publication, or 120 years after creation. <br> <br>
You see, the French are not that bad. They certainly do not lobby for infinity. And they have changed the limit only twice in over 200 years.<br> <br>

(Sorry for the links to the French pages, but I found them clearer.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>French " droit patrimonial " gives an exclusive right that runs until 70 years after the death of the author [ wikipedia.org ] .
If wikipedia is correct , it says that in the US [ wikipedia.org ] it 's : 70 years after the death , or 95 years after publication , or 120 years after creation .
You see , the French are not that bad .
They certainly do not lobby for infinity .
And they have changed the limit only twice in over 200 years .
( Sorry for the links to the French pages , but I found them clearer .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>French "droit patrimonial" gives an exclusive right that runs until 70 years after the death of the author [wikipedia.org].
If wikipedia is correct, it says that in the US [wikipedia.org] it's: 70 years after the death, or 95 years after publication, or 120 years after creation.
You see, the French are not that bad.
They certainly do not lobby for infinity.
And they have changed the limit only twice in over 200 years.
(Sorry for the links to the French pages, but I found them clearer.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</id>
	<title>Bounty System.</title>
	<author>Master Moose</author>
	<datestamp>1264344660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is how (I think) I would do it. I start to write a book. I will release a few chapters for free online. I could and would even solicit feedback from these chapters.

I now start a bounty. I would want X dollars for my work and a little bit to keep me going.

Once I have reached X dollars, I will finish my story and release it as an e-book - free for any and all to read, share and do pretty much anything with besides alter or make money off of.

If I fail to reach my bounty - it would be because people didn't want my story - why should I get paid for or release/finish something no one wants?

They key to this idea is that I get compensated what I believe I should and get compensated(until a movie studio wants to buy the movie rights). And no one gets denied my literary genius<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

The public does not even need to know how much my bounty is - maybe I would let them know what percentage has been obtained - and if unreached, I would guarantee refunds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is how ( I think ) I would do it .
I start to write a book .
I will release a few chapters for free online .
I could and would even solicit feedback from these chapters .
I now start a bounty .
I would want X dollars for my work and a little bit to keep me going .
Once I have reached X dollars , I will finish my story and release it as an e-book - free for any and all to read , share and do pretty much anything with besides alter or make money off of .
If I fail to reach my bounty - it would be because people did n't want my story - why should I get paid for or release/finish something no one wants ?
They key to this idea is that I get compensated what I believe I should and get compensated ( until a movie studio wants to buy the movie rights ) .
And no one gets denied my literary genius : ) The public does not even need to know how much my bounty is - maybe I would let them know what percentage has been obtained - and if unreached , I would guarantee refunds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is how (I think) I would do it.
I start to write a book.
I will release a few chapters for free online.
I could and would even solicit feedback from these chapters.
I now start a bounty.
I would want X dollars for my work and a little bit to keep me going.
Once I have reached X dollars, I will finish my story and release it as an e-book - free for any and all to read, share and do pretty much anything with besides alter or make money off of.
If I fail to reach my bounty - it would be because people didn't want my story - why should I get paid for or release/finish something no one wants?
They key to this idea is that I get compensated what I believe I should and get compensated(until a movie studio wants to buy the movie rights).
And no one gets denied my literary genius :)

The public does not even need to know how much my bounty is - maybe I would let them know what percentage has been obtained - and if unreached, I would guarantee refunds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886326</id>
	<title>Re:Uhh, some of the best benefits are NO control..</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1264357440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Other companies are free to scan their own books. Google was only granted legal exclusivity over their scanned copies. They are licensing their copies. Basically to recoup the however many millions they've spent to scan the books. The Books Rights Registry can license to people other than google...<br> <br>In addition nothing has passed, a hearing is happening in February.<br> <br>And yes, this deal does trample on copyright laws, opt-out is clearly not the idea of copyrights. Personally I wish they trampled on it more and had copyright laws changed but that's me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other companies are free to scan their own books .
Google was only granted legal exclusivity over their scanned copies .
They are licensing their copies .
Basically to recoup the however many millions they 've spent to scan the books .
The Books Rights Registry can license to people other than google... In addition nothing has passed , a hearing is happening in February .
And yes , this deal does trample on copyright laws , opt-out is clearly not the idea of copyrights .
Personally I wish they trampled on it more and had copyright laws changed but that 's me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other companies are free to scan their own books.
Google was only granted legal exclusivity over their scanned copies.
They are licensing their copies.
Basically to recoup the however many millions they've spent to scan the books.
The Books Rights Registry can license to people other than google... In addition nothing has passed, a hearing is happening in February.
And yes, this deal does trample on copyright laws, opt-out is clearly not the idea of copyrights.
Personally I wish they trampled on it more and had copyright laws changed but that's me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885166</id>
	<title>Bored</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264347300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm fucking tired of Google related articles, please open googledot.com and discuss this shit there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fucking tired of Google related articles , please open googledot.com and discuss this shit there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fucking tired of Google related articles, please open googledot.com and discuss this shit there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570</id>
	<title>Her statement seems inconsistent.</title>
	<author>BitterOak</author>
	<datestamp>1264343580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media. All authors hope for that. But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.</p></div><p>Her statements here appear contradictory.  She says that electronic books should be available as books are available in libraries, but goes on to say that copyright holders must control their dissemination.  But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The free and open dissemination of information and of literature , as it exists in our Public Libraries , can and should exist in the electronic media .
All authors hope for that .
But we can not have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.Her statements here appear contradictory .
She says that electronic books should be available as books are available in libraries , but goes on to say that copyright holders must control their dissemination .
But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media.
All authors hope for that.
But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.Her statements here appear contradictory.
She says that electronic books should be available as books are available in libraries, but goes on to say that copyright holders must control their dissemination.
But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885594</id>
	<title>Re:Who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264351260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound so proud of your moronic ignorance. Congratulations, you can now go join the republican majority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound so proud of your moronic ignorance .
Congratulations , you can now go join the republican majority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound so proud of your moronic ignorance.
Congratulations, you can now go join the republican majority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30900274</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>bit01</author>
	<datestamp>1264441140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case?</em> </p><p> <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1386207&amp;cid=29591257" title="slashdot.org">This persistent meme needs to die.</a> [slashdot.org] There may be other reasons for allowing copyright after death but this isn't one of them.</p><p>---</p><p> <em>I own it therefore I get to decide what happens to it is a meaningless tautology. Ownership by definition is the right to control. The more interesting question is who owns it?</em> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case ?
This persistent meme needs to die .
[ slashdot.org ] There may be other reasons for allowing copyright after death but this is n't one of them.--- I own it therefore I get to decide what happens to it is a meaningless tautology .
Ownership by definition is the right to control .
The more interesting question is who owns it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case?
This persistent meme needs to die.
[slashdot.org] There may be other reasons for allowing copyright after death but this isn't one of them.--- I own it therefore I get to decide what happens to it is a meaningless tautology.
Ownership by definition is the right to control.
The more interesting question is who owns it? </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886252</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264356840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case?</p></div><p>So there is an extra side-benefit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case ? So there is an extra side-benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case?So there is an extra side-benefit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884560</id>
	<title>Re:Limited times</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1264343520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple.  It never expires.  She seems to have a very very distorted idea of what "free and open dissemination of information and literature" means.  Apparently she thinks that information needs to be controlled by its author(s) in order to be open or some such nonsense.  It's an extreme sense of entitlement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple .
It never expires .
She seems to have a very very distorted idea of what " free and open dissemination of information and literature " means .
Apparently she thinks that information needs to be controlled by its author ( s ) in order to be open or some such nonsense .
It 's an extreme sense of entitlement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple.
It never expires.
She seems to have a very very distorted idea of what "free and open dissemination of information and literature" means.
Apparently she thinks that information needs to be controlled by its author(s) in order to be open or some such nonsense.
It's an extreme sense of entitlement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30893064</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>mimiru</author>
	<datestamp>1264445820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And how exactly would those publishers benefit if they "murder" the author? the work will go into public domain, not to the publisher. You can't benefit from popular works if everyone's able to print and market their own copy (i.e. no monopoly).</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how exactly would those publishers benefit if they " murder " the author ?
the work will go into public domain , not to the publisher .
You ca n't benefit from popular works if everyone 's able to print and market their own copy ( i.e .
no monopoly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how exactly would those publishers benefit if they "murder" the author?
the work will go into public domain, not to the publisher.
You can't benefit from popular works if everyone's able to print and market their own copy (i.e.
no monopoly).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888054</id>
	<title>Re:Bounty System.</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1264420740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are being unrealistically non-greedy. What if everyone thought like you?</p><p>(We'd have an information-age utopia, that's what. Not going to happen.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are being unrealistically non-greedy .
What if everyone thought like you ?
( We 'd have an information-age utopia , that 's what .
Not going to happen .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are being unrealistically non-greedy.
What if everyone thought like you?
(We'd have an information-age utopia, that's what.
Not going to happen.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30890730</id>
	<title>opposing the google book deal</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1264437600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control</i>"<br> <br>

Except the book deal has no effect what so ever on the authors copyright. They have the same control as before. The copyright holder can opt-out at any time. The campaign against the Google Books, is being orchestrated by you.know.who.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control " Except the book deal has no effect what so ever on the authors copyright .
They have the same control as before .
The copyright holder can opt-out at any time .
The campaign against the Google Books , is being orchestrated by you.know.who .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control" 

Except the book deal has no effect what so ever on the authors copyright.
They have the same control as before.
The copyright holder can opt-out at any time.
The campaign against the Google Books, is being orchestrated by you.know.who.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885204</id>
	<title>Ursula Le Guin is old and senile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264347720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyrights are a detriment to human progress.   When Benjamen Franklin and others created the idea of the public library, it was so that people could free themselves from ignorance and use their new found knowledge to create a better life for themselves and posterity.  Now in the year 2010, that dream dream of free knowledge for freedoms sake is very very sick.  In the USA, libraries are shutting down earlier and earlier, and the masses are kept satiated with a steady supply of pointless entertainment, and meaningless work.   Copyright "rights holders" want to keep you in ignorance and beholden to them for knowledge.</p><p>However there is hope on the horizon.  Thanks to the up-coming and inevitable e-book revolution, the written word will be free from the printed page, and those that would control those pages. Let us burn down the publishing houses, and give a Kindle to every man, women and child.  Those that want to make a living of the work and sweat of others e.g. Publishing houses, the Author's guild, and the descendants of the writers who still want to be Paid 70 plus years after the actual author's body has been eaten by worms should find themselves dead in the street.</p><p>Ursula Le Guin did some good work in her day.  We should respect Ms. Guin, like we respect a slightly senile and kindly Grandma, but we should not let our lives by run by your old grandparents.</p><p>-Strike a blow for freedom today, by downloading an illegal e-book today and reading it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyrights are a detriment to human progress .
When Benjamen Franklin and others created the idea of the public library , it was so that people could free themselves from ignorance and use their new found knowledge to create a better life for themselves and posterity .
Now in the year 2010 , that dream dream of free knowledge for freedoms sake is very very sick .
In the USA , libraries are shutting down earlier and earlier , and the masses are kept satiated with a steady supply of pointless entertainment , and meaningless work .
Copyright " rights holders " want to keep you in ignorance and beholden to them for knowledge.However there is hope on the horizon .
Thanks to the up-coming and inevitable e-book revolution , the written word will be free from the printed page , and those that would control those pages .
Let us burn down the publishing houses , and give a Kindle to every man , women and child .
Those that want to make a living of the work and sweat of others e.g .
Publishing houses , the Author 's guild , and the descendants of the writers who still want to be Paid 70 plus years after the actual author 's body has been eaten by worms should find themselves dead in the street.Ursula Le Guin did some good work in her day .
We should respect Ms. Guin , like we respect a slightly senile and kindly Grandma , but we should not let our lives by run by your old grandparents.-Strike a blow for freedom today , by downloading an illegal e-book today and reading it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyrights are a detriment to human progress.
When Benjamen Franklin and others created the idea of the public library, it was so that people could free themselves from ignorance and use their new found knowledge to create a better life for themselves and posterity.
Now in the year 2010, that dream dream of free knowledge for freedoms sake is very very sick.
In the USA, libraries are shutting down earlier and earlier, and the masses are kept satiated with a steady supply of pointless entertainment, and meaningless work.
Copyright "rights holders" want to keep you in ignorance and beholden to them for knowledge.However there is hope on the horizon.
Thanks to the up-coming and inevitable e-book revolution, the written word will be free from the printed page, and those that would control those pages.
Let us burn down the publishing houses, and give a Kindle to every man, women and child.
Those that want to make a living of the work and sweat of others e.g.
Publishing houses, the Author's guild, and the descendants of the writers who still want to be Paid 70 plus years after the actual author's body has been eaten by worms should find themselves dead in the street.Ursula Le Guin did some good work in her day.
We should respect Ms. Guin, like we respect a slightly senile and kindly Grandma, but we should not let our lives by run by your old grandparents.-Strike a blow for freedom today, by downloading an illegal e-book today and reading it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886412</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1264358280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?</p></div><p>Do you own the company you work for?  In which case are you arguing that your children shouldn't inherit it when you die?</p><p>The author owns the work that's being published.  You don't own what you're working on for your 'boss'.  So you're right, writers shouldn't be treated any different.  Their estate should continue to earn their share of the money coming in from the work.  Writer != Office Peon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I die , my kids wo n't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary , why should writers be any different ? Do you own the company you work for ?
In which case are you arguing that your children should n't inherit it when you die ? The author owns the work that 's being published .
You do n't own what you 're working on for your 'boss' .
So you 're right , writers should n't be treated any different .
Their estate should continue to earn their share of the money coming in from the work .
Writer ! = Office Peon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?Do you own the company you work for?
In which case are you arguing that your children shouldn't inherit it when you die?The author owns the work that's being published.
You don't own what you're working on for your 'boss'.
So you're right, writers shouldn't be treated any different.
Their estate should continue to earn their share of the money coming in from the work.
Writer != Office Peon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885762</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1264352340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it were so she'd have been murdered already, given that the copyright expiration clock doesn't start ticking as long as she breathes.</p><p>Though given that corporations can't generally think 5 minutes ahead of them, let alone 50 years, it may just be that I'm giving corps far more credit than they deserve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were so she 'd have been murdered already , given that the copyright expiration clock does n't start ticking as long as she breathes.Though given that corporations ca n't generally think 5 minutes ahead of them , let alone 50 years , it may just be that I 'm giving corps far more credit than they deserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it were so she'd have been murdered already, given that the copyright expiration clock doesn't start ticking as long as she breathes.Though given that corporations can't generally think 5 minutes ahead of them, let alone 50 years, it may just be that I'm giving corps far more credit than they deserve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888756</id>
	<title>Re:the parental model</title>
	<author>One Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264428720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a creator of largely neglected works that I believe may, in time, prove to be of some wider value I would like to agree with the following caveat.<br> <br>The author of a given right should have conferred upon them the right to a token of copyright fiat. That is upon creation a work enters the public domain by default. Then, at such a time as the author chooses, the right of copyright fiat is invoked and runs its term. After it is over the work is once again in the public domain.<br> <br>This circumvents the inherent unfairness of something neglected during a "from creation" copyright term suddenly becoming popular years after creation. It also means that copyright can be restricted to as few years as necessary for a creator (or their descendants) to benefit from a first flush of popularity. I think five years in such a case might even be a little overlong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a creator of largely neglected works that I believe may , in time , prove to be of some wider value I would like to agree with the following caveat .
The author of a given right should have conferred upon them the right to a token of copyright fiat .
That is upon creation a work enters the public domain by default .
Then , at such a time as the author chooses , the right of copyright fiat is invoked and runs its term .
After it is over the work is once again in the public domain .
This circumvents the inherent unfairness of something neglected during a " from creation " copyright term suddenly becoming popular years after creation .
It also means that copyright can be restricted to as few years as necessary for a creator ( or their descendants ) to benefit from a first flush of popularity .
I think five years in such a case might even be a little overlong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a creator of largely neglected works that I believe may, in time, prove to be of some wider value I would like to agree with the following caveat.
The author of a given right should have conferred upon them the right to a token of copyright fiat.
That is upon creation a work enters the public domain by default.
Then, at such a time as the author chooses, the right of copyright fiat is invoked and runs its term.
After it is over the work is once again in the public domain.
This circumvents the inherent unfairness of something neglected during a "from creation" copyright term suddenly becoming popular years after creation.
It also means that copyright can be restricted to as few years as necessary for a creator (or their descendants) to benefit from a first flush of popularity.
I think five years in such a case might even be a little overlong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886054</id>
	<title>Re:Limited times</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264355220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, what in her mind happens when that time expires?</p></div><p>From a <a href="http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Copyright.html" title="ursulakleguin.com">brief overview of copyright issues from author's perspective</a> [ursulakleguin.com] her web site:</p><p><i>"... I don't even talk about electronic rights, which have become a total hornet's nest in the last few years; nor do I discuss the <b>recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A, which has imperilled the international copyright system</b>."</i></p><p>So it looks like she's not exactly in favor of (+INF-1) copyright terms and the like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what in her mind happens when that time expires ? From a brief overview of copyright issues from author 's perspective [ ursulakleguin.com ] her web site : " ... I do n't even talk about electronic rights , which have become a total hornet 's nest in the last few years ; nor do I discuss the recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A , which has imperilled the international copyright system .
" So it looks like she 's not exactly in favor of ( + INF-1 ) copyright terms and the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what in her mind happens when that time expires?From a brief overview of copyright issues from author's perspective [ursulakleguin.com] her web site:"... I don't even talk about electronic rights, which have become a total hornet's nest in the last few years; nor do I discuss the recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A, which has imperilled the international copyright system.
"So it looks like she's not exactly in favor of (+INF-1) copyright terms and the like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885766</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1264352340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>/. worries me when they mod things like this interesting rather than funny @\_@</htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .
worries me when they mod things like this interesting rather than funny @ \ _ @</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/.
worries me when they mod things like this interesting rather than funny @\_@</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887122</id>
	<title>Never heard of her</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264452720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What did she write?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What did she write ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did she write?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884592</id>
	<title>Re: Your Grammar (``Author's'')</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264343700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quoth Strong Bad's fantastic ``Rhythm N' Grammar'' album: ``Ooooh! If you want it to be possessive it's just I-T-S, but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's I-T-apostrophe-S... scalawag.''
</p><p>
Or you can ask <a href="http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif" title="angryflower.com" rel="nofollow">Bob the Angry Flower</a> [angryflower.com] for grammar advice. (*)
</p><p>
*: Warning. Angry flower may be angry and sneer at you. Or worse.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quoth Strong Bad 's fantastic ` ` Rhythm N ' Grammar' ' album : ` ` Ooooh !
If you want it to be possessive it 's just I-T-S , but if it 's supposed to be a contraction then it 's I-T-apostrophe-S.. .
scalawag.' ' Or you can ask Bob the Angry Flower [ angryflower.com ] for grammar advice .
( * ) * : Warning .
Angry flower may be angry and sneer at you .
Or worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quoth Strong Bad's fantastic ``Rhythm N' Grammar'' album: ``Ooooh!
If you want it to be possessive it's just I-T-S, but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's I-T-apostrophe-S...
scalawag.''

Or you can ask Bob the Angry Flower [angryflower.com] for grammar advice.
(*)

*: Warning.
Angry flower may be angry and sneer at you.
Or worse.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885420</id>
	<title>Re:the parental model</title>
	<author>xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D</author>
	<datestamp>1264349820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's more like building a house, selling it to someone else, and then trying to dictate what the new owner can and can't do with their own house! The bits of artists controlling their works has the nice side-effect that it helps them get paid and no one's against artists getting paid, right? The problem is it gives them all sorts of bizarre rights that don't exist in any other domain in society. If a woodworker tried to keep control of his art after he'd sold it he'd be rightly told to go fuck himself; why is a writer given special permission to tell people what to do with the things they've bought just because they're creating something that's not physical?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more like building a house , selling it to someone else , and then trying to dictate what the new owner can and ca n't do with their own house !
The bits of artists controlling their works has the nice side-effect that it helps them get paid and no one 's against artists getting paid , right ?
The problem is it gives them all sorts of bizarre rights that do n't exist in any other domain in society .
If a woodworker tried to keep control of his art after he 'd sold it he 'd be rightly told to go fuck himself ; why is a writer given special permission to tell people what to do with the things they 've bought just because they 're creating something that 's not physical ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more like building a house, selling it to someone else, and then trying to dictate what the new owner can and can't do with their own house!
The bits of artists controlling their works has the nice side-effect that it helps them get paid and no one's against artists getting paid, right?
The problem is it gives them all sorts of bizarre rights that don't exist in any other domain in society.
If a woodworker tried to keep control of his art after he'd sold it he'd be rightly told to go fuck himself; why is a writer given special permission to tell people what to do with the things they've bought just because they're creating something that's not physical?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891630</id>
	<title>Re:Doublethink</title>
	<author>ElmoGonzo</author>
	<datestamp>1264440420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's free when you take the book out of the library and read it.
It's controlled because the library had to buy the book.  Or lease it.  Or get it donated by someone who bought it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's free when you take the book out of the library and read it .
It 's controlled because the library had to buy the book .
Or lease it .
Or get it donated by someone who bought it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's free when you take the book out of the library and read it.
It's controlled because the library had to buy the book.
Or lease it.
Or get it donated by someone who bought it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884824</id>
	<title>Re:the parental model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264345080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how all the people proposing these theories here have never published a book that actually could be sold for real money.</p><p>Why is it unfair that artists control their work?  That's like saying that people who build or buy a house should eventually have to give it back to society.  If you have talent and tremendous dedication, go make another work that may be inspired by the works you admire.  Just don't copy passages verbatim or use the same names.</p><p>If you don't have both talent and tremendous dedication, well then.  I guess you post here and get 300 other slashdotters to mod up your posts for each other's approbation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how all the people proposing these theories here have never published a book that actually could be sold for real money.Why is it unfair that artists control their work ?
That 's like saying that people who build or buy a house should eventually have to give it back to society .
If you have talent and tremendous dedication , go make another work that may be inspired by the works you admire .
Just do n't copy passages verbatim or use the same names.If you do n't have both talent and tremendous dedication , well then .
I guess you post here and get 300 other slashdotters to mod up your posts for each other 's approbation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how all the people proposing these theories here have never published a book that actually could be sold for real money.Why is it unfair that artists control their work?
That's like saying that people who build or buy a house should eventually have to give it back to society.
If you have talent and tremendous dedication, go make another work that may be inspired by the works you admire.
Just don't copy passages verbatim or use the same names.If you don't have both talent and tremendous dedication, well then.
I guess you post here and get 300 other slashdotters to mod up your posts for each other's approbation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884524</id>
	<title>Programmers Are Authors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264343280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a professional code writer (programmer) who agrees with the petition but doesn't have any published books, should I sign or is it not for me and I would harm their process by signing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a professional code writer ( programmer ) who agrees with the petition but does n't have any published books , should I sign or is it not for me and I would harm their process by signing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a professional code writer (programmer) who agrees with the petition but doesn't have any published books, should I sign or is it not for me and I would harm their process by signing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886386</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1264357920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd rather the big corps get the millions instead of the family of the people that created it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd rather the big corps get the millions instead of the family of the people that created it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd rather the big corps get the millions instead of the family of the people that created it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264344900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"none of this estate stuff..."</p><p>This always drives me nuts as a writer. Okay it can take a decade or more to get your work out there. Say I write a dozen books and finally get one published then a day later die in a car accident leaving my family with nothing but the work I spent ten years writing. Are you saying they don't have the right to benefit from my work? Some writers only become popular after their death even though they may leave a large body of work. Why should the public benefit but not my family? I'm anti corporation because out current system basically forces the artist to give up rights to see their work published. I think artists should be able to retain rights and their families benefit if they die. If my family isn't going to be allowed to benefit from my work then I'd rather do something with my time they are allowed to retain so they can live without going on welfare if I happen to die young. Why should the public have rights over and above the creator? It makes no sense. If there's no incentive to publish then I have no choice but to stop and do something else with my time. If I built investment houses for a living there wouldn't be a debate about taking them away from my family after I died. Say I'm a sculptor and I have a warehouse full of sculptures when I died should those be taken away from my family upon my death? Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths? My work is my legacy to my family as much as it is to the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" none of this estate stuff... " This always drives me nuts as a writer .
Okay it can take a decade or more to get your work out there .
Say I write a dozen books and finally get one published then a day later die in a car accident leaving my family with nothing but the work I spent ten years writing .
Are you saying they do n't have the right to benefit from my work ?
Some writers only become popular after their death even though they may leave a large body of work .
Why should the public benefit but not my family ?
I 'm anti corporation because out current system basically forces the artist to give up rights to see their work published .
I think artists should be able to retain rights and their families benefit if they die .
If my family is n't going to be allowed to benefit from my work then I 'd rather do something with my time they are allowed to retain so they can live without going on welfare if I happen to die young .
Why should the public have rights over and above the creator ?
It makes no sense .
If there 's no incentive to publish then I have no choice but to stop and do something else with my time .
If I built investment houses for a living there would n't be a debate about taking them away from my family after I died .
Say I 'm a sculptor and I have a warehouse full of sculptures when I died should those be taken away from my family upon my death ?
Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths ?
My work is my legacy to my family as much as it is to the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"none of this estate stuff..."This always drives me nuts as a writer.
Okay it can take a decade or more to get your work out there.
Say I write a dozen books and finally get one published then a day later die in a car accident leaving my family with nothing but the work I spent ten years writing.
Are you saying they don't have the right to benefit from my work?
Some writers only become popular after their death even though they may leave a large body of work.
Why should the public benefit but not my family?
I'm anti corporation because out current system basically forces the artist to give up rights to see their work published.
I think artists should be able to retain rights and their families benefit if they die.
If my family isn't going to be allowed to benefit from my work then I'd rather do something with my time they are allowed to retain so they can live without going on welfare if I happen to die young.
Why should the public have rights over and above the creator?
It makes no sense.
If there's no incentive to publish then I have no choice but to stop and do something else with my time.
If I built investment houses for a living there wouldn't be a debate about taking them away from my family after I died.
Say I'm a sculptor and I have a warehouse full of sculptures when I died should those be taken away from my family upon my death?
Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths?
My work is my legacy to my family as much as it is to the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891120</id>
	<title>Re:Limited times</title>
	<author>eyrieowl</author>
	<datestamp>1264438980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely.  Her definition seems closer to doublethink than to truth.  There are lots of rational arguments for some sort of intellectual property protection that are at least based in reason...that it somehow preserves the free and open dissemination of ideas is not one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely .
Her definition seems closer to doublethink than to truth .
There are lots of rational arguments for some sort of intellectual property protection that are at least based in reason...that it somehow preserves the free and open dissemination of ideas is not one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely.
Her definition seems closer to doublethink than to truth.
There are lots of rational arguments for some sort of intellectual property protection that are at least based in reason...that it somehow preserves the free and open dissemination of ideas is not one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887810</id>
	<title>Jasper</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1264417860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a shame - still, given the revisionist Earthsea sequels, and the constant cat litter references in everything she's written since about 1980, perhaps it's just as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a shame - still , given the revisionist Earthsea sequels , and the constant cat litter references in everything she 's written since about 1980 , perhaps it 's just as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a shame - still, given the revisionist Earthsea sequels, and the constant cat litter references in everything she's written since about 1980, perhaps it's just as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886104</id>
	<title>Re:the parental model</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1264355520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If i buy that house from a builder and want to rent it out, let others enjoy it... hell just have guests. You expect me to pay the builder?<br> <br>Anyways copyright law is supposed to be there to ensure works are produced, that artists have sufficient encouragement to go out and make things. That happens in under 20 years for music probably under 5. <br> <br>The goal isn't to make artists happy. If we made laws to make specific groups happy then fuck I want free computers. And I'd be wicked happy if I could imprison people that don't use my software, just because. See my point?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If i buy that house from a builder and want to rent it out , let others enjoy it... hell just have guests .
You expect me to pay the builder ?
Anyways copyright law is supposed to be there to ensure works are produced , that artists have sufficient encouragement to go out and make things .
That happens in under 20 years for music probably under 5 .
The goal is n't to make artists happy .
If we made laws to make specific groups happy then fuck I want free computers .
And I 'd be wicked happy if I could imprison people that do n't use my software , just because .
See my point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If i buy that house from a builder and want to rent it out, let others enjoy it... hell just have guests.
You expect me to pay the builder?
Anyways copyright law is supposed to be there to ensure works are produced, that artists have sufficient encouragement to go out and make things.
That happens in under 20 years for music probably under 5.
The goal isn't to make artists happy.
If we made laws to make specific groups happy then fuck I want free computers.
And I'd be wicked happy if I could imprison people that don't use my software, just because.
See my point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887066</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>graden</author>
	<datestamp>1264452060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anything you physically own before you die will be passed on to your family [...]</p></div><p>Why draw the line at something a person *physically* owns? Putting time, money and energy into creating a physical sculpture is OK and the sculpture (and the rights to it) should be inherited, but if you do the same with a book they should not? And what about software you wrote?</p><p>Perhaps assign a time limit to each creation, physical or otherwise. The rights to that creation could then be inherited.. or whatever you wish to do with them when you die. So long as there is a time limit, estate won't be a problem</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?</p></div><p>Because you (most people, anyway) are paid each month for something they contribute each month. Writers etcetera perform the work up-front and are then paid when people buy their books. The comparison is flawed because the situations are very different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything you physically own before you die will be passed on to your family [ ... ] Why draw the line at something a person * physically * owns ?
Putting time , money and energy into creating a physical sculpture is OK and the sculpture ( and the rights to it ) should be inherited , but if you do the same with a book they should not ?
And what about software you wrote ? Perhaps assign a time limit to each creation , physical or otherwise .
The rights to that creation could then be inherited.. or whatever you wish to do with them when you die .
So long as there is a time limit , estate wo n't be a problemIf I die , my kids wo n't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary , why should writers be any different ? Because you ( most people , anyway ) are paid each month for something they contribute each month .
Writers etcetera perform the work up-front and are then paid when people buy their books .
The comparison is flawed because the situations are very different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything you physically own before you die will be passed on to your family [...]Why draw the line at something a person *physically* owns?
Putting time, money and energy into creating a physical sculpture is OK and the sculpture (and the rights to it) should be inherited, but if you do the same with a book they should not?
And what about software you wrote?Perhaps assign a time limit to each creation, physical or otherwise.
The rights to that creation could then be inherited.. or whatever you wish to do with them when you die.
So long as there is a time limit, estate won't be a problemIf I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?Because you (most people, anyway) are paid each month for something they contribute each month.
Writers etcetera perform the work up-front and are then paid when people buy their books.
The comparison is flawed because the situations are very different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887974</id>
	<title>Re:Ursula Le Guin is old and senile</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264419840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let us burn down the publishing houses, and give a Kindle to every man, women and child.</p> </div><p>I hope you're trolling, Mr. fahrenheit911.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let us burn down the publishing houses , and give a Kindle to every man , women and child .
I hope you 're trolling , Mr. fahrenheit911 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let us burn down the publishing houses, and give a Kindle to every man, women and child.
I hope you're trolling, Mr. fahrenheit911.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884814</id>
	<title>Re:the parental model</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1264345080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"To hold on to that relationship too long is unhealthy for everyone involved, including society as a <b> <i>hole</i></b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p></div></blockquote><p>So let me guess<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you are not a professional writer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" To hold on to that relationship too long is unhealthy for everyone involved , including society as a hole .
" So let me guess ... you are not a professional writer ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"To hold on to that relationship too long is unhealthy for everyone involved, including society as a  hole .
"So let me guess ... you are not a professional writer ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Cruciform</author>
	<datestamp>1264343940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case?<br>Book publishers would end up with their own mercenary task forces to get access to popular works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case ? Book publishers would end up with their own mercenary task forces to get access to popular works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case?Book publishers would end up with their own mercenary task forces to get access to popular works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884954</id>
	<title>"free and open" or "controlled"?</title>
	<author>Punto</author>
	<datestamp>1264345980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would "free and open dissemination of information" be controlled by anyone? how can it be "free and open" and "controlled" at the same time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would " free and open dissemination of information " be controlled by anyone ?
how can it be " free and open " and " controlled " at the same time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would "free and open dissemination of information" be controlled by anyone?
how can it be "free and open" and "controlled" at the same time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884552</id>
	<title>Doublethink</title>
	<author>chrylis</author>
	<datestamp>1264343520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that Ms. LeGuin is engaging in a bit of doublethink: How exactly is anything "free" while it's simultaneously "controlled"?</p><p>(Not to mention, of course, that claiming "legitimate right" is begging the question...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that Ms. LeGuin is engaging in a bit of doublethink : How exactly is anything " free " while it 's simultaneously " controlled " ?
( Not to mention , of course , that claiming " legitimate right " is begging the question... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that Ms. LeGuin is engaging in a bit of doublethink: How exactly is anything "free" while it's simultaneously "controlled"?
(Not to mention, of course, that claiming "legitimate right" is begging the question...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884872</id>
	<title>Re:Her statement seems inconsistent.</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1264345320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Her statements here appear contradictory.  She says that electronic books should be available as books are available in libraries, but goes on to say that copyright holders must control their dissemination.  But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!</p></div><p>You're right but the biggest problem is the phrase 'information and literature.'  I have a bigger problem with her logic that information should be controlled.  Had she said 'arts and literature' I would have written a lengthy response attempting to identify with her or at least asking what her desired end state is.  But when you start to advocate control of information, you kind of lose me on pure principle.  <br> <br>

Now I'm not naive enough to think that fiction and nonfiction are a pure dichotomy and would open dialogues of the works of great historians.  But I agree that capitalism (especially current implementations) have flaws when rewarding artists versus -- say -- an engineer.  I would also agree that they are not always fairly reimbursed for their contributions to society.  And that's a subjective thing so of course you will never get it right.  But if you purchasing books used to be their major income and now -- if what she fears is true -- you can get a lot online for less cash, how is she reimbursed?  I guess we'd need major clarifications on the Google book deal.  Like who will set the prices?  Google?  The publisher?  The author?  She, of course, fears for this control and I hope she contacted Google about clarifications on this before speaking publicly as this could just be a misunderstanding.  <br> <br>

In the end, she has a right to her opinion.  She should never have joined the Authors Guild as they turned out to be horrid representatives for her.  I don't know what effects -- if any -- her <a href="http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Note-AGResignation.html" title="ursulakleguin.com">open resignation</a> [ursulakleguin.com] had in that community but she made a poor choice in joining.  She has a right to express her opinion, I'm curious to see how many authors agree with her.  As you pointed out, books are available for my lending in a library so what if an online scheme could do the same thing?  <i>Especially</i> for out of print books and the agonizingly slowly growing population of those in the public domain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Her statements here appear contradictory .
She says that electronic books should be available as books are available in libraries , but goes on to say that copyright holders must control their dissemination .
But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries ! You 're right but the biggest problem is the phrase 'information and literature .
' I have a bigger problem with her logic that information should be controlled .
Had she said 'arts and literature ' I would have written a lengthy response attempting to identify with her or at least asking what her desired end state is .
But when you start to advocate control of information , you kind of lose me on pure principle .
Now I 'm not naive enough to think that fiction and nonfiction are a pure dichotomy and would open dialogues of the works of great historians .
But I agree that capitalism ( especially current implementations ) have flaws when rewarding artists versus -- say -- an engineer .
I would also agree that they are not always fairly reimbursed for their contributions to society .
And that 's a subjective thing so of course you will never get it right .
But if you purchasing books used to be their major income and now -- if what she fears is true -- you can get a lot online for less cash , how is she reimbursed ?
I guess we 'd need major clarifications on the Google book deal .
Like who will set the prices ?
Google ? The publisher ?
The author ?
She , of course , fears for this control and I hope she contacted Google about clarifications on this before speaking publicly as this could just be a misunderstanding .
In the end , she has a right to her opinion .
She should never have joined the Authors Guild as they turned out to be horrid representatives for her .
I do n't know what effects -- if any -- her open resignation [ ursulakleguin.com ] had in that community but she made a poor choice in joining .
She has a right to express her opinion , I 'm curious to see how many authors agree with her .
As you pointed out , books are available for my lending in a library so what if an online scheme could do the same thing ?
Especially for out of print books and the agonizingly slowly growing population of those in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Her statements here appear contradictory.
She says that electronic books should be available as books are available in libraries, but goes on to say that copyright holders must control their dissemination.
But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!You're right but the biggest problem is the phrase 'information and literature.
'  I have a bigger problem with her logic that information should be controlled.
Had she said 'arts and literature' I would have written a lengthy response attempting to identify with her or at least asking what her desired end state is.
But when you start to advocate control of information, you kind of lose me on pure principle.
Now I'm not naive enough to think that fiction and nonfiction are a pure dichotomy and would open dialogues of the works of great historians.
But I agree that capitalism (especially current implementations) have flaws when rewarding artists versus -- say -- an engineer.
I would also agree that they are not always fairly reimbursed for their contributions to society.
And that's a subjective thing so of course you will never get it right.
But if you purchasing books used to be their major income and now -- if what she fears is true -- you can get a lot online for less cash, how is she reimbursed?
I guess we'd need major clarifications on the Google book deal.
Like who will set the prices?
Google?  The publisher?
The author?
She, of course, fears for this control and I hope she contacted Google about clarifications on this before speaking publicly as this could just be a misunderstanding.
In the end, she has a right to her opinion.
She should never have joined the Authors Guild as they turned out to be horrid representatives for her.
I don't know what effects -- if any -- her open resignation [ursulakleguin.com] had in that community but she made a poor choice in joining.
She has a right to express her opinion, I'm curious to see how many authors agree with her.
As you pointed out, books are available for my lending in a library so what if an online scheme could do the same thing?
Especially for out of print books and the agonizingly slowly growing population of those in the public domain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886514</id>
	<title>Re:the parental model</title>
	<author>roju</author>
	<datestamp>1264359180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're making a big assumption there. There are lots of creative folks on slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're making a big assumption there .
There are lots of creative folks on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're making a big assumption there.
There are lots of creative folks on slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886492</id>
	<title>Re:huh?</title>
	<author>Opyros</author>
	<datestamp>1264358940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>i love ursula k leguin. in fact, i noticed cameron ripped her off with the "every plant is a node in a giant neural network" idea in avatar. it was a short story of hers, i forget the name, and she played it like a horror movie instead.</p></div></blockquote><p>
"Vaster than Empires and More Slow", collected in her anthology <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Wind's\_Twelve\_Quarters" title="wikipedia.org"> <i>The Wind's Twelve Quarters</i> </a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i love ursula k leguin .
in fact , i noticed cameron ripped her off with the " every plant is a node in a giant neural network " idea in avatar .
it was a short story of hers , i forget the name , and she played it like a horror movie instead .
" Vaster than Empires and More Slow " , collected in her anthology The Wind 's Twelve Quarters [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i love ursula k leguin.
in fact, i noticed cameron ripped her off with the "every plant is a node in a giant neural network" idea in avatar.
it was a short story of hers, i forget the name, and she played it like a horror movie instead.
"Vaster than Empires and More Slow", collected in her anthology  The Wind's Twelve Quarters  [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884908</id>
	<title>Re:Limited times</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1264345620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.</p></div></blockquote><p>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.</p><p>So, what in her mind happens when that time expires?</p></div><p>Nothing, obviously: Under ACTA, copyrights will expire roughly two weeks <i>after</i> the heat death of the universe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But we can not have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.So , what in her mind happens when that time expires ? Nothing , obviously : Under ACTA , copyrights will expire roughly two weeks after the heat death of the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.So, what in her mind happens when that time expires?Nothing, obviously: Under ACTA, copyrights will expire roughly two weeks after the heat death of the universe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885232</id>
	<title>I support her position</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264347960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I support her position</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I support her position</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I support her position</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886188</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264356360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This always drives me nuts as a writer. Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths?"</p><p>You are lying about being a writer.  No real writer would use the non-word "loosing".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This always drives me nuts as a writer .
Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths ?
" You are lying about being a writer .
No real writer would use the non-word " loosing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This always drives me nuts as a writer.
Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths?
"You are lying about being a writer.
No real writer would use the non-word "loosing".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885872</id>
	<title>Re:The French would disagree</title>
	<author>jdrugo</author>
	<datestamp>1264353300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>The French would disagree with this. They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century.  I don't know why the French are this way, but given that they have invented croissants, mayonaisse and champagne, I'm inclined to believe them.</i> </p></div><p>You shouldn't love them too much for their croissants, as those were blatantly copied from the Austrians, who created the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croissant#Origin" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">croissant's predecessor, known as the 'Kipferl'</a> [wikipedia.org], which - after being introduced by a Viennese into the Parisian society - was copied by French 'viennoiseries' and became the croissant. Luckily - for them - intellectual property protection wasn't going havoc in the 1830s, yet.</p><p>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The French would disagree with this .
They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century .
I do n't know why the French are this way , but given that they have invented croissants , mayonaisse and champagne , I 'm inclined to believe them .
You should n't love them too much for their croissants , as those were blatantly copied from the Austrians , who created the croissant 's predecessor , known as the 'Kipferl ' [ wikipedia.org ] , which - after being introduced by a Viennese into the Parisian society - was copied by French 'viennoiseries ' and became the croissant .
Luckily - for them - intellectual property protection was n't going havoc in the 1830s , yet. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The French would disagree with this.
They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century.
I don't know why the French are this way, but given that they have invented croissants, mayonaisse and champagne, I'm inclined to believe them.
You shouldn't love them too much for their croissants, as those were blatantly copied from the Austrians, who created the croissant's predecessor, known as the 'Kipferl' [wikipedia.org], which - after being introduced by a Viennese into the Parisian society - was copied by French 'viennoiseries' and became the croissant.
Luckily - for them - intellectual property protection wasn't going havoc in the 1830s, yet..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885800</id>
	<title>Re:Doublethink</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264352640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright law.  The whole thing is a paradoxical balance between control by the author and the freedom of users to (for example) quote excerpts of the work for purposes of "fair use", or loan a book to someone else (library or individually) regardless of the author's wishes.  Control with limits.  Eventually, the whole thing expires to the public domain and people are free to do what they want with it.</p><p>It's not "doublethink", it's the balance between competing interests that is inherent in copyright.</p><p>People are reading her statement as if it was unintentionally contradictory.  She's not dumb.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright law .
The whole thing is a paradoxical balance between control by the author and the freedom of users to ( for example ) quote excerpts of the work for purposes of " fair use " , or loan a book to someone else ( library or individually ) regardless of the author 's wishes .
Control with limits .
Eventually , the whole thing expires to the public domain and people are free to do what they want with it.It 's not " doublethink " , it 's the balance between competing interests that is inherent in copyright.People are reading her statement as if it was unintentionally contradictory .
She 's not dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright law.
The whole thing is a paradoxical balance between control by the author and the freedom of users to (for example) quote excerpts of the work for purposes of "fair use", or loan a book to someone else (library or individually) regardless of the author's wishes.
Control with limits.
Eventually, the whole thing expires to the public domain and people are free to do what they want with it.It's not "doublethink", it's the balance between competing interests that is inherent in copyright.People are reading her statement as if it was unintentionally contradictory.
She's not dumb.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30905982</id>
	<title>I think you got the nations all mixed up</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264527360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The <b>French</b> would disagree with this. They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century.</p></div><p>You're supposed to blame Canada!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The French would disagree with this .
They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century.You 're supposed to blame Canada !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The French would disagree with this.
They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century.You're supposed to blame Canada!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885382</id>
	<title>Re:Her statement seems inconsistent.</title>
	<author>leomrtns</author>
	<datestamp>1264349460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. The inconsistency becomes more apparent if you abstract the sentence to "X cannot be free unless it is controlled by Y". She is free to defend the control by copyright holders, but she cannot claim that this control is equivalent to "free and open dissemination".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
The inconsistency becomes more apparent if you abstract the sentence to " X can not be free unless it is controlled by Y " .
She is free to defend the control by copyright holders , but she can not claim that this control is equivalent to " free and open dissemination " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
The inconsistency becomes more apparent if you abstract the sentence to "X cannot be free unless it is controlled by Y".
She is free to defend the control by copyright holders, but she cannot claim that this control is equivalent to "free and open dissemination".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887630</id>
	<title>Re:The French would disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264415700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Croissants have been invented by the Viennese, mayonnaise by the inhabitants of Menorca and champagne by an english monk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Croissants have been invented by the Viennese , mayonnaise by the inhabitants of Menorca and champagne by an english monk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Croissants have been invented by the Viennese, mayonnaise by the inhabitants of Menorca and champagne by an english monk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884468</id>
	<title>Limited times</title>
	<author>hackwrench</author>
	<datestamp>1264342740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.<br>
<br>
So, what in her mind happens when that time expires?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But we can not have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it .
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries .
So , what in her mind happens when that time expires ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
So, what in her mind happens when that time expires?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885710</id>
	<title>Re:Her statement seems inconsistent.</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1264351920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!</p></div><p>Actually, they do. To get permission to distribute a book in libraries, the library must purchase the book, or at least receive it via a chain of physical ownership that begins with someone purchasing the book. And even then, the library cannot simply sell or otherwise distribute additional copies they make of the book.</p><p>What Le Guin is complaining about here is that, unlike the deal she made with her publisher to make and sell copies of her books, the Google deal is being forced upon her by organizations she did not empower to act on her behalf. Google is engaged in a virtual land grab by taking advantage of the long lag time between technological advances and the legislatures being populated by people who actually understand the technology.</p><p>Even if you belong to the "data wants to be free camp" -- with which I have some sympathy -- it's not like Google is going to be freely distributing copyrighted works. They're going to charge us for them, provide the authors with terms that they unilaterally dictate, and do so in a market in which they will have a virtual monopoly, enabling them to charge any price the market will bear without significant competition. Both readers and writers get shafted in this arrangement. Only Google comes out ahead. And once Google has turned a substantial chunk of the body of human knowledge into their product inventory, as a publicly-owned company, they're practically obligated by law to devote their enormous resources to lobbying for further copyright extensions in order to protect the interests of their shareholders.</p><p>Ursula Le Guin is not one of the bad guys here. She's spoken out against copyright extension before, and done so quite eloquently. All she -- and I would assume the vast majority of authors -- is asking for is for something like the original intent of the Constitution on the subject to be honored: to secure for a <i>limited time</i> the right of creators to their creations. And not to be subject to coercion just because a giant corporation has the resources to walk all over a bunch of private individuals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries ! Actually , they do .
To get permission to distribute a book in libraries , the library must purchase the book , or at least receive it via a chain of physical ownership that begins with someone purchasing the book .
And even then , the library can not simply sell or otherwise distribute additional copies they make of the book.What Le Guin is complaining about here is that , unlike the deal she made with her publisher to make and sell copies of her books , the Google deal is being forced upon her by organizations she did not empower to act on her behalf .
Google is engaged in a virtual land grab by taking advantage of the long lag time between technological advances and the legislatures being populated by people who actually understand the technology.Even if you belong to the " data wants to be free camp " -- with which I have some sympathy -- it 's not like Google is going to be freely distributing copyrighted works .
They 're going to charge us for them , provide the authors with terms that they unilaterally dictate , and do so in a market in which they will have a virtual monopoly , enabling them to charge any price the market will bear without significant competition .
Both readers and writers get shafted in this arrangement .
Only Google comes out ahead .
And once Google has turned a substantial chunk of the body of human knowledge into their product inventory , as a publicly-owned company , they 're practically obligated by law to devote their enormous resources to lobbying for further copyright extensions in order to protect the interests of their shareholders.Ursula Le Guin is not one of the bad guys here .
She 's spoken out against copyright extension before , and done so quite eloquently .
All she -- and I would assume the vast majority of authors -- is asking for is for something like the original intent of the Constitution on the subject to be honored : to secure for a limited time the right of creators to their creations .
And not to be subject to coercion just because a giant corporation has the resources to walk all over a bunch of private individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!Actually, they do.
To get permission to distribute a book in libraries, the library must purchase the book, or at least receive it via a chain of physical ownership that begins with someone purchasing the book.
And even then, the library cannot simply sell or otherwise distribute additional copies they make of the book.What Le Guin is complaining about here is that, unlike the deal she made with her publisher to make and sell copies of her books, the Google deal is being forced upon her by organizations she did not empower to act on her behalf.
Google is engaged in a virtual land grab by taking advantage of the long lag time between technological advances and the legislatures being populated by people who actually understand the technology.Even if you belong to the "data wants to be free camp" -- with which I have some sympathy -- it's not like Google is going to be freely distributing copyrighted works.
They're going to charge us for them, provide the authors with terms that they unilaterally dictate, and do so in a market in which they will have a virtual monopoly, enabling them to charge any price the market will bear without significant competition.
Both readers and writers get shafted in this arrangement.
Only Google comes out ahead.
And once Google has turned a substantial chunk of the body of human knowledge into their product inventory, as a publicly-owned company, they're practically obligated by law to devote their enormous resources to lobbying for further copyright extensions in order to protect the interests of their shareholders.Ursula Le Guin is not one of the bad guys here.
She's spoken out against copyright extension before, and done so quite eloquently.
All she -- and I would assume the vast majority of authors -- is asking for is for something like the original intent of the Constitution on the subject to be honored: to secure for a limited time the right of creators to their creations.
And not to be subject to coercion just because a giant corporation has the resources to walk all over a bunch of private individuals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590</id>
	<title>The French would disagree</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264343700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone.</i></p><p>The French would disagree with this. They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century.  I don't know why the French are this way, but given that they have invented croissants, mayonaisse and champagne, I'm inclined to believe them.</p><p>So it looks like the French are our new political football in America.  Liberals loved the French when they were anti-war, and now, here we are, conservatives, saying, "hey, look at how great France is", in order to support copyrights.</p><p>Oh France! Some Americans will always hate you, but America as a whole will always love you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone.The French would disagree with this .
They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century .
I do n't know why the French are this way , but given that they have invented croissants , mayonaisse and champagne , I 'm inclined to believe them.So it looks like the French are our new political football in America .
Liberals loved the French when they were anti-war , and now , here we are , conservatives , saying , " hey , look at how great France is " , in order to support copyrights.Oh France !
Some Americans will always hate you , but America as a whole will always love you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone.The French would disagree with this.
They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century.
I don't know why the French are this way, but given that they have invented croissants, mayonaisse and champagne, I'm inclined to believe them.So it looks like the French are our new political football in America.
Liberals loved the French when they were anti-war, and now, here we are, conservatives, saying, "hey, look at how great France is", in order to support copyrights.Oh France!
Some Americans will always hate you, but America as a whole will always love you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891698</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>jecblackpepper</author>
	<datestamp>1264440660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But perhaps they'll be able to have pension benefits or life insurance pay outs depending on the contract you had.</p><p>To answer your question though, the main reason is that authors are basically entrepreneurs, they invest a lot of effort up front with no guarantee that they'll get a return. We as a society have decided that we quite like the idea of authors writing books to enrich our lives and culture and have decided that we'll create copyright laws to guarantee them a limited time monopoly so as to allow them to benefit from writing their book, and to make it further encourage them to produce these books that we generally like we've allowed that monopoly to continue after their death so that their dependent can benefit from their hard work.</p><p>Ultimately it's because we as a society value creative works.</p><p>In reality, I think the only contentious point for most people is the length of copyright not the principle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But perhaps they 'll be able to have pension benefits or life insurance pay outs depending on the contract you had.To answer your question though , the main reason is that authors are basically entrepreneurs , they invest a lot of effort up front with no guarantee that they 'll get a return .
We as a society have decided that we quite like the idea of authors writing books to enrich our lives and culture and have decided that we 'll create copyright laws to guarantee them a limited time monopoly so as to allow them to benefit from writing their book , and to make it further encourage them to produce these books that we generally like we 've allowed that monopoly to continue after their death so that their dependent can benefit from their hard work.Ultimately it 's because we as a society value creative works.In reality , I think the only contentious point for most people is the length of copyright not the principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But perhaps they'll be able to have pension benefits or life insurance pay outs depending on the contract you had.To answer your question though, the main reason is that authors are basically entrepreneurs, they invest a lot of effort up front with no guarantee that they'll get a return.
We as a society have decided that we quite like the idea of authors writing books to enrich our lives and culture and have decided that we'll create copyright laws to guarantee them a limited time monopoly so as to allow them to benefit from writing their book, and to make it further encourage them to produce these books that we generally like we've allowed that monopoly to continue after their death so that their dependent can benefit from their hard work.Ultimately it's because we as a society value creative works.In reality, I think the only contentious point for most people is the length of copyright not the principle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884444</id>
	<title>Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264342560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.</p><p>INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.<br>You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.</p><p>CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER<br>Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat</p><p>HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.</p><p>FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.</p><p>MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.<br>Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger !
If handled properly , your apeman will give years of valuable , if reluctant , service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model .
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration , i.e .
chained together .
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it , and do n't even think about taking that chain off , ever .
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them .
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud .
House niggers work best as standalone units , but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape .
At this stage , your nigger can also be given a name .
Most owners use the same names over and over , since niggers become confused by too much data .
Rufus , Rastus , Remus , Toby , Carslisle , Carlton , Hey-You ! -Yes-you ! , Yeller , Blackstar , and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger .
If your nigger is a ho , it should be called Latrelle , L'Tanya , or Jemima .
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke .
Pearl , Blossom , and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes .
These names go straight over your nigger 's head , by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error , your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords .
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - " muh dick " being the most popular .
However , others make barking , yelping , yapping noises and appear to be in some pain , so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger 's tongue .
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least , you wo n't hear it complaining anywhere near as much .
Niggers have nothing interesting to say , anyway .
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons ( yours , mine , and that of women , not the nigger 's ) .
This is strongly recommended , and frankly , it 's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars .
Make sure , however , that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through .
The rule of thumb is , four niggers per square yard of cage .
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers .
You can site a nigger cage anywhere , even on soft ground .
Do n't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage .
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they 're not about to now .
In any case , your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape .
As long as the free food holds out , your nigger is living better than it did in Africa , so it will stay put .
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage , as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken , corn bread , and watermelon .
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly does n't deserve it .
Instead , feed it on porridge with salt , and creek water .
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields , other niggers , etc .
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat , but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day .
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer , since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives .
He reports he does n't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result .
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work , since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained .
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton .
You really would .
Coffee beans ?
Do n't ask .
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very , very averse to work of any kind .
The nigger 's most</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger!
If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model.
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e.
chained together.
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever.
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them.
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud.
House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape.
At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name.
Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data.
Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger.
If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima.
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke.
Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes.
These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords.
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular.
However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue.
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much.
Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway.
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's).
This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars.
Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through.
The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage.
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers.
You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground.
Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage.
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now.
In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape.
As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put.
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon.
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it.
Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water.
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc.
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day.
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives.
He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result.
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained.
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton.
You really would.
Coffee beans?
Don't ask.
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind.
The nigger's most</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887110</id>
	<title>Re:Bounty System.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stephen King did something like this in 2000 with "The Plant": 75\% of downloaders had to pay for it, or he would stop releasing chapters. I believe it kind of worked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stephen King did something like this in 2000 with " The Plant " : 75 \ % of downloaders had to pay for it , or he would stop releasing chapters .
I believe it kind of worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stephen King did something like this in 2000 with "The Plant": 75\% of downloaders had to pay for it, or he would stop releasing chapters.
I believe it kind of worked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30900216</id>
	<title>Before you all go crazy please read.</title>
	<author>NSN A392-99-964-5927</author>
	<datestamp>1264440540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This petition is important. I am close friends of some good authors that are quite notable. Google need to get off the ladder and stop making my book collection worthless. This is just basically for Kindle's.  Eitherway, I just have one thing to really say; "A book that you can hold in your hand, look back over chapters enhances your senses"

When you get in the Bath or shower, just imagine Digital Soap or Shower Gel. That is why all this digitalisation will fail miserably. I sincerely hope my comments knock millions off the share prices!

love
NSN</htmltext>
<tokenext>This petition is important .
I am close friends of some good authors that are quite notable .
Google need to get off the ladder and stop making my book collection worthless .
This is just basically for Kindle 's .
Eitherway , I just have one thing to really say ; " A book that you can hold in your hand , look back over chapters enhances your senses " When you get in the Bath or shower , just imagine Digital Soap or Shower Gel .
That is why all this digitalisation will fail miserably .
I sincerely hope my comments knock millions off the share prices !
love NSN</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This petition is important.
I am close friends of some good authors that are quite notable.
Google need to get off the ladder and stop making my book collection worthless.
This is just basically for Kindle's.
Eitherway, I just have one thing to really say; "A book that you can hold in your hand, look back over chapters enhances your senses"

When you get in the Bath or shower, just imagine Digital Soap or Shower Gel.
That is why all this digitalisation will fail miserably.
I sincerely hope my comments knock millions off the share prices!
love
NSN</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885062</id>
	<title>"Free" vs. "Controlled"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264346700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Lending" and free are not one and the same.  Libraries do lend, but are still controlled by copyright - that is, they cannot allow someone to copy an entire book, but the can lend it out to be read.  Likewise, reading online should be okay but downloading (which would allow for unlimited copying) should not.  I see nothing contradictory between "free" and "controlled" when you take this into account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Lending " and free are not one and the same .
Libraries do lend , but are still controlled by copyright - that is , they can not allow someone to copy an entire book , but the can lend it out to be read .
Likewise , reading online should be okay but downloading ( which would allow for unlimited copying ) should not .
I see nothing contradictory between " free " and " controlled " when you take this into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Lending" and free are not one and the same.
Libraries do lend, but are still controlled by copyright - that is, they cannot allow someone to copy an entire book, but the can lend it out to be read.
Likewise, reading online should be okay but downloading (which would allow for unlimited copying) should not.
I see nothing contradictory between "free" and "controlled" when you take this into account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30890110</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1264435260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lets go, 14 years from time of creation(first time someone besides the creator sees it), estate gets it for the remainder of the 14 years if the creator dies before the expiration. I mean really, life+70 is a long long time, especily when Disney(the company not the guy or a guy at disney) owns the copyright. Since Disney isn't "dead" yet.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>lets go , 14 years from time of creation ( first time someone besides the creator sees it ) , estate gets it for the remainder of the 14 years if the creator dies before the expiration .
I mean really , life + 70 is a long long time , especily when Disney ( the company not the guy or a guy at disney ) owns the copyright .
Since Disney is n't " dead " yet.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lets go, 14 years from time of creation(first time someone besides the creator sees it), estate gets it for the remainder of the 14 years if the creator dies before the expiration.
I mean really, life+70 is a long long time, especily when Disney(the company not the guy or a guy at disney) owns the copyright.
Since Disney isn't "dead" yet.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502</id>
	<title>the parental model</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1264343040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It occurs to me that authoring a book should be a lot like raising a child.  You should have the right to full control of your progeny for a little while then it's not "yours" any more.  To hold on to that relationship too long is unhealthy for everyone involved, including society as a hole.</p><p>This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It occurs to me that authoring a book should be a lot like raising a child .
You should have the right to full control of your progeny for a little while then it 's not " yours " any more .
To hold on to that relationship too long is unhealthy for everyone involved , including society as a hole.This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It occurs to me that authoring a book should be a lot like raising a child.
You should have the right to full control of your progeny for a little while then it's not "yours" any more.
To hold on to that relationship too long is unhealthy for everyone involved, including society as a hole.This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891382</id>
	<title>Re:Bounty System.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264439700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And indeed, someone is already way ahead of you on this.<br>http://www.kickstarter.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And indeed , someone is already way ahead of you on this.http : //www.kickstarter.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And indeed, someone is already way ahead of you on this.http://www.kickstarter.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884998</id>
	<title>Re:the parental model</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1264346340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Society as a hole is a good metaphor, though.  Or simile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Society as a hole is a good metaphor , though .
Or simile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Society as a hole is a good metaphor, though.
Or simile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885506</id>
	<title>Re:Bounty System.</title>
	<author>ParadoxDruid</author>
	<datestamp>1264350660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That system already exists.  It's called the Ransom Model, and one of my favorite authors, Greg Stolze, has been using it quite extensively.

<a href="http://arcdream.livejournal.com/4645.html" title="livejournal.com">http://arcdream.livejournal.com/4645.html</a> [livejournal.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>That system already exists .
It 's called the Ransom Model , and one of my favorite authors , Greg Stolze , has been using it quite extensively .
http : //arcdream.livejournal.com/4645.html [ livejournal.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That system already exists.
It's called the Ransom Model, and one of my favorite authors, Greg Stolze, has been using it quite extensively.
http://arcdream.livejournal.com/4645.html [livejournal.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884834</id>
	<title>Re:Her statement seems inconsistent.</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1264345140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your mistaken dissemination for copying.<br> <br> Go into any public library, and you will find that they will actively stop you from photocopying wholesale any of their books -- but they're happy to lend them to you! In other words, they abide by the <i>copy</i>rights of the author and publisher.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your mistaken dissemination for copying .
Go into any public library , and you will find that they will actively stop you from photocopying wholesale any of their books -- but they 're happy to lend them to you !
In other words , they abide by the copyrights of the author and publisher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your mistaken dissemination for copying.
Go into any public library, and you will find that they will actively stop you from photocopying wholesale any of their books -- but they're happy to lend them to you!
In other words, they abide by the copyrights of the author and publisher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1264347120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths?</p></div><p>You're not. Anything you physically own before you die will be passed on to your family (local laws permitting), just like any other person on the planet... house, money, car, copies of your books, porn mags, etc.</p><p>The real question should be: why are writers and creators singled out for \_EXTRA\_ rights which aren't given to anyone else? If I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths ? You 're not .
Anything you physically own before you die will be passed on to your family ( local laws permitting ) , just like any other person on the planet... house , money , car , copies of your books , porn mags , etc.The real question should be : why are writers and creators singled out for \ _EXTRA \ _ rights which are n't given to anyone else ?
If I die , my kids wo n't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary , why should writers be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths?You're not.
Anything you physically own before you die will be passed on to your family (local laws permitting), just like any other person on the planet... house, money, car, copies of your books, porn mags, etc.The real question should be: why are writers and creators singled out for \_EXTRA\_ rights which aren't given to anyone else?
If I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885618</id>
	<title>Re:Bounty System.</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1264351380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool.</p><p>So you will not mind getting fired from your job, and starting to use such a system for yourself, to make money? Because these people are fighting for their income. It is far too easy to suggest an unproven method to make money, and that they should all be happy about the changing world.</p><p>Not saying that she is correct, but it is too easy to talk about other people losing their jobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool.So you will not mind getting fired from your job , and starting to use such a system for yourself , to make money ?
Because these people are fighting for their income .
It is far too easy to suggest an unproven method to make money , and that they should all be happy about the changing world.Not saying that she is correct , but it is too easy to talk about other people losing their jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool.So you will not mind getting fired from your job, and starting to use such a system for yourself, to make money?
Because these people are fighting for their income.
It is far too easy to suggest an unproven method to make money, and that they should all be happy about the changing world.Not saying that she is correct, but it is too easy to talk about other people losing their jobs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886172</id>
	<title>Future of Literature</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1264356240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole future of Literature, is up for grabs here. So we
need a good legal settlement. I haven't yet read enough
about the google book settlement to understand it well enough
yet, so I don't know well if it is what Ms Le Guinn says is apt.
I can understand her position as a Author. Clearly Authors need
to be paid otherwise the profession would disappear as we know
it. If Google opens up all or most literature to be free to all, the
professional author will be much poorer. I'd hate Authorship
to be supposed by corperations with hidden agenders or
product placement. Still a world wide free library is great is
it not, for learn and the education of the populus. A google
library would do much to push the world from the writing
in the paper medium to the electronic media.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Science\%20Fiction\%20Books/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Science Fiction</a> [feeddistiller.com] Books @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole future of Literature , is up for grabs here .
So we need a good legal settlement .
I have n't yet read enough about the google book settlement to understand it well enough yet , so I do n't know well if it is what Ms Le Guinn says is apt .
I can understand her position as a Author .
Clearly Authors need to be paid otherwise the profession would disappear as we know it .
If Google opens up all or most literature to be free to all , the professional author will be much poorer .
I 'd hate Authorship to be supposed by corperations with hidden agenders or product placement .
Still a world wide free library is great is it not , for learn and the education of the populus .
A google library would do much to push the world from the writing in the paper medium to the electronic media .
--- Science Fiction [ feeddistiller.com ] Books @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole future of Literature, is up for grabs here.
So we
need a good legal settlement.
I haven't yet read enough
about the google book settlement to understand it well enough
yet, so I don't know well if it is what Ms Le Guinn says is apt.
I can understand her position as a Author.
Clearly Authors need
to be paid otherwise the profession would disappear as we know
it.
If Google opens up all or most literature to be free to all, the
professional author will be much poorer.
I'd hate Authorship
to be supposed by corperations with hidden agenders or
product placement.
Still a world wide free library is great is
it not, for learn and the education of the populus.
A google
library would do much to push the world from the writing
in the paper medium to the electronic media.
---

Science Fiction [feeddistiller.com] Books @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887376</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264412160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at it this way: say your work is building apartment buildings, and you invest your profits from each building into buying apartments in those buildings, renting them, and living off the rent.</p><p>In many countries, if you die, your kids inherit the apartments, and are in every right to go to whomever rented those apartment and demand that they continue paying rent to them. When the contract ends, they may rent the apartments to other people, and continue making money from your work for as long as the buildings stand.</p><p>The case could be made that books are no different from apartments - as long as the books are printed and solds, the author's descendants (or whomever inherits the books in the literary work sense of the word, rather than the physical copies) should be able to demand the publisher pay them the money earned from those works, same as they would earn money by renting apartments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at it this way : say your work is building apartment buildings , and you invest your profits from each building into buying apartments in those buildings , renting them , and living off the rent.In many countries , if you die , your kids inherit the apartments , and are in every right to go to whomever rented those apartment and demand that they continue paying rent to them .
When the contract ends , they may rent the apartments to other people , and continue making money from your work for as long as the buildings stand.The case could be made that books are no different from apartments - as long as the books are printed and solds , the author 's descendants ( or whomever inherits the books in the literary work sense of the word , rather than the physical copies ) should be able to demand the publisher pay them the money earned from those works , same as they would earn money by renting apartments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at it this way: say your work is building apartment buildings, and you invest your profits from each building into buying apartments in those buildings, renting them, and living off the rent.In many countries, if you die, your kids inherit the apartments, and are in every right to go to whomever rented those apartment and demand that they continue paying rent to them.
When the contract ends, they may rent the apartments to other people, and continue making money from your work for as long as the buildings stand.The case could be made that books are no different from apartments - as long as the books are printed and solds, the author's descendants (or whomever inherits the books in the literary work sense of the word, rather than the physical copies) should be able to demand the publisher pay them the money earned from those works, same as they would earn money by renting apartments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886026</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264354980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths?"</p><p>Last I checked, "You can't take it with you" applies equally to everybody.  But, yeah, usually a family inherits your stuff, although they might have to pay taxes on it.</p><p>"Why should the public have rights over and above the creator? It makes no sense."</p><p>Who exactly is paying for the justice system that investigates and prosecutes copyright infringement cases?  You think all that control over your work thanks to copyright comes for free?  The public pays for a lot of it.  And the bargain is simple: you get to control and to make money from your work first, with the full power of the law to bear for the enforcement of that control.  Then the public eventually collects on the debt when the work gets deposited into the public domain.</p><p>Don't like the bargain?  Don't release the work.  It's like the sculptures in the warehouse that you mention.  Keep them there and it is private and you have much more comprehensive control.  The public does not have "rights over and above the creator".  They only gain some rights when *you* decide to publicly distribute the work under copyright, and the rights they get are pretty limited for a long time, until well after your death.  It's a fair deal that you have little to complain about.</p><p>That being said, I am supportive of "death + 20 years" for copyright terms so that a family has ample time to put things in order and prepare to earn income by being creative on their own.  Or, alternatively, to decide to publish your unpublished private writings you were working on just before you died.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths ?
" Last I checked , " You ca n't take it with you " applies equally to everybody .
But , yeah , usually a family inherits your stuff , although they might have to pay taxes on it .
" Why should the public have rights over and above the creator ?
It makes no sense .
" Who exactly is paying for the justice system that investigates and prosecutes copyright infringement cases ?
You think all that control over your work thanks to copyright comes for free ?
The public pays for a lot of it .
And the bargain is simple : you get to control and to make money from your work first , with the full power of the law to bear for the enforcement of that control .
Then the public eventually collects on the debt when the work gets deposited into the public domain.Do n't like the bargain ?
Do n't release the work .
It 's like the sculptures in the warehouse that you mention .
Keep them there and it is private and you have much more comprehensive control .
The public does not have " rights over and above the creator " .
They only gain some rights when * you * decide to publicly distribute the work under copyright , and the rights they get are pretty limited for a long time , until well after your death .
It 's a fair deal that you have little to complain about.That being said , I am supportive of " death + 20 years " for copyright terms so that a family has ample time to put things in order and prepare to earn income by being creative on their own .
Or , alternatively , to decide to publish your unpublished private writings you were working on just before you died .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths?
"Last I checked, "You can't take it with you" applies equally to everybody.
But, yeah, usually a family inherits your stuff, although they might have to pay taxes on it.
"Why should the public have rights over and above the creator?
It makes no sense.
"Who exactly is paying for the justice system that investigates and prosecutes copyright infringement cases?
You think all that control over your work thanks to copyright comes for free?
The public pays for a lot of it.
And the bargain is simple: you get to control and to make money from your work first, with the full power of the law to bear for the enforcement of that control.
Then the public eventually collects on the debt when the work gets deposited into the public domain.Don't like the bargain?
Don't release the work.
It's like the sculptures in the warehouse that you mention.
Keep them there and it is private and you have much more comprehensive control.
The public does not have "rights over and above the creator".
They only gain some rights when *you* decide to publicly distribute the work under copyright, and the rights they get are pretty limited for a long time, until well after your death.
It's a fair deal that you have little to complain about.That being said, I am supportive of "death + 20 years" for copyright terms so that a family has ample time to put things in order and prepare to earn income by being creative on their own.
Or, alternatively, to decide to publish your unpublished private writings you were working on just before you died.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885476</id>
	<title>She should take a lesson from her own books</title>
	<author>Torrance</author>
	<datestamp>1264350300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Le Guin should take a lesson from her own books. Her novel <em>The Dispossessed</em> portrayed an (imperfect) anarchist-communist society, in which no one owned a thing. They adhered to the maxim "property is theft." In fact, I believe she once claimed that, of all the political theories, anarchist-communism was the one that appealed to her most.</p><p>Pity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Le Guin should take a lesson from her own books .
Her novel The Dispossessed portrayed an ( imperfect ) anarchist-communist society , in which no one owned a thing .
They adhered to the maxim " property is theft .
" In fact , I believe she once claimed that , of all the political theories , anarchist-communism was the one that appealed to her most.Pity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Le Guin should take a lesson from her own books.
Her novel The Dispossessed portrayed an (imperfect) anarchist-communist society, in which no one owned a thing.
They adhered to the maxim "property is theft.
" In fact, I believe she once claimed that, of all the political theories, anarchist-communism was the one that appealed to her most.Pity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885440</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264350000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, I find it amusing that some people tag that comment as trolling.</p><p>Imagine any product or technology capable of generating billions of dollars of income.</p><p>Let's say.... Viagra.</p><p>Now instead of the copyright/patent/trademark being in effect for a set amount of time (short/long/whatever) you base it entirely on the moment of death for a specific individual.</p><p>Want to take bets on how quickly that individual would die?</p><p>Setting a 5/10/15 year limit as opposed to "free on death" is additional protection for the creator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , I find it amusing that some people tag that comment as trolling.Imagine any product or technology capable of generating billions of dollars of income.Let 's say.... Viagra.Now instead of the copyright/patent/trademark being in effect for a set amount of time ( short/long/whatever ) you base it entirely on the moment of death for a specific individual.Want to take bets on how quickly that individual would die ? Setting a 5/10/15 year limit as opposed to " free on death " is additional protection for the creator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, I find it amusing that some people tag that comment as trolling.Imagine any product or technology capable of generating billions of dollars of income.Let's say.... Viagra.Now instead of the copyright/patent/trademark being in effect for a set amount of time (short/long/whatever) you base it entirely on the moment of death for a specific individual.Want to take bets on how quickly that individual would die?Setting a 5/10/15 year limit as opposed to "free on death" is additional protection for the creator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888000</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264420260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silly silly analogy..</p><p>So things that aren't physical can't be passed on? Quick kids, make sure grandpa gets all his "fantasy" money out of the bank and converted to cash and diamonds. We wouldn't want that imaginary money disappearing once he dies.</p><p>Your kids can't go to your boss and demand payment for value that hasn't been delivered - you're dead, you're not earning a salary. Someone who does real work - whether it's building a house or writing a book - deserves to be compensated accordingly. And if that compensation extends beyond your lifetime, to helping your own kids out, then so be it. It's not a "special" right - it's natural. Do the work, reap the reward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silly silly analogy..So things that are n't physical ca n't be passed on ?
Quick kids , make sure grandpa gets all his " fantasy " money out of the bank and converted to cash and diamonds .
We would n't want that imaginary money disappearing once he dies.Your kids ca n't go to your boss and demand payment for value that has n't been delivered - you 're dead , you 're not earning a salary .
Someone who does real work - whether it 's building a house or writing a book - deserves to be compensated accordingly .
And if that compensation extends beyond your lifetime , to helping your own kids out , then so be it .
It 's not a " special " right - it 's natural .
Do the work , reap the reward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silly silly analogy..So things that aren't physical can't be passed on?
Quick kids, make sure grandpa gets all his "fantasy" money out of the bank and converted to cash and diamonds.
We wouldn't want that imaginary money disappearing once he dies.Your kids can't go to your boss and demand payment for value that hasn't been delivered - you're dead, you're not earning a salary.
Someone who does real work - whether it's building a house or writing a book - deserves to be compensated accordingly.
And if that compensation extends beyond your lifetime, to helping your own kids out, then so be it.
It's not a "special" right - it's natural.
Do the work, reap the reward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30900198</id>
	<title>Re:huh?</title>
	<author>bit01</author>
	<datestamp>1264440420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>in fact, i noticed cameron ripped her off with the "every plant is a node in a giant neural network" idea in avatar.</em> </p><p>Dozens, probably hundreds of stories have used this idea before and after Leguin. A lot of people don't realize just how many SF stories have been written. e.g. Amazing Stories magazine. There's not much new under the sun.</p><p>---</p><p> <em>The patent system. The whole edifice is based on handwaving.</em> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in fact , i noticed cameron ripped her off with the " every plant is a node in a giant neural network " idea in avatar .
Dozens , probably hundreds of stories have used this idea before and after Leguin .
A lot of people do n't realize just how many SF stories have been written .
e.g. Amazing Stories magazine .
There 's not much new under the sun.--- The patent system .
The whole edifice is based on handwaving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> in fact, i noticed cameron ripped her off with the "every plant is a node in a giant neural network" idea in avatar.
Dozens, probably hundreds of stories have used this idea before and after Leguin.
A lot of people don't realize just how many SF stories have been written.
e.g. Amazing Stories magazine.
There's not much new under the sun.--- The patent system.
The whole edifice is based on handwaving. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888644</id>
	<title>what i find myself wondering...</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1264427640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is what kind of rights google have managed to negotiate, exactly.</p><p>if they make a orphaned work available for download or online reading, can they then claim control under copyright for that work, or can the person that downloaded then make infinite copies to friends or others?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is what kind of rights google have managed to negotiate , exactly.if they make a orphaned work available for download or online reading , can they then claim control under copyright for that work , or can the person that downloaded then make infinite copies to friends or others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is what kind of rights google have managed to negotiate, exactly.if they make a orphaned work available for download or online reading, can they then claim control under copyright for that work, or can the person that downloaded then make infinite copies to friends or others?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886266</id>
	<title>Re:the parental model</title>
	<author>iphinome</author>
	<datestamp>1264356900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because said work is almost certain to contain stuff scraped from works already in the public domain. In the western world maybe an allusion to a bible story or fairy tale? A phrase Shakespeare managed to add into the English language? Anything that's part of the hero's journey has likely been done before. No doubt what someone gets published is different enough to be a new work but it would be built on the collective culture that came before it. When a work is controlled forever or a patent lasts forever sooner or later everything starts to infringe on everything else, with nothing you can build on there's no progress.

Copyright is a compromise, we delay building on your work for a few years while you try to make a buck and in exchange after those few years we get to make copies of your whatever, remix it, re-imagine it, see how it works when you replace the puppies with kittens, see how the story changes if it takes place in a different place or time or maybe just reference the one clever phrase you've ever come up with in your life.

If you want to keep control forever don't publish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because said work is almost certain to contain stuff scraped from works already in the public domain .
In the western world maybe an allusion to a bible story or fairy tale ?
A phrase Shakespeare managed to add into the English language ?
Anything that 's part of the hero 's journey has likely been done before .
No doubt what someone gets published is different enough to be a new work but it would be built on the collective culture that came before it .
When a work is controlled forever or a patent lasts forever sooner or later everything starts to infringe on everything else , with nothing you can build on there 's no progress .
Copyright is a compromise , we delay building on your work for a few years while you try to make a buck and in exchange after those few years we get to make copies of your whatever , remix it , re-imagine it , see how it works when you replace the puppies with kittens , see how the story changes if it takes place in a different place or time or maybe just reference the one clever phrase you 've ever come up with in your life .
If you want to keep control forever do n't publish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because said work is almost certain to contain stuff scraped from works already in the public domain.
In the western world maybe an allusion to a bible story or fairy tale?
A phrase Shakespeare managed to add into the English language?
Anything that's part of the hero's journey has likely been done before.
No doubt what someone gets published is different enough to be a new work but it would be built on the collective culture that came before it.
When a work is controlled forever or a patent lasts forever sooner or later everything starts to infringe on everything else, with nothing you can build on there's no progress.
Copyright is a compromise, we delay building on your work for a few years while you try to make a buck and in exchange after those few years we get to make copies of your whatever, remix it, re-imagine it, see how it works when you replace the puppies with kittens, see how the story changes if it takes place in a different place or time or maybe just reference the one clever phrase you've ever come up with in your life.
If you want to keep control forever don't publish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885220</id>
	<title>Bull</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264347840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once you make something public, it's public. I'm a little biased here-- I write exploits for a living. As soon as more than a handful of people get a look at these, not only does someone publish my work with their own name on it, another group of people goes and modifies the targetted product, destroying the entire work. (which could take up to a year). So fuck artists, really. If you want to retain control of your work, keep it private. We have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you make something public , it 's public .
I 'm a little biased here-- I write exploits for a living .
As soon as more than a handful of people get a look at these , not only does someone publish my work with their own name on it , another group of people goes and modifies the targetted product , destroying the entire work .
( which could take up to a year ) .
So fuck artists , really .
If you want to retain control of your work , keep it private .
We have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you make something public, it's public.
I'm a little biased here-- I write exploits for a living.
As soon as more than a handful of people get a look at these, not only does someone publish my work with their own name on it, another group of people goes and modifies the targetted product, destroying the entire work.
(which could take up to a year).
So fuck artists, really.
If you want to retain control of your work, keep it private.
We have to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884544</id>
	<title>Re:the parental model</title>
	<author>sensei moreh</author>
	<datestamp>1264343460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or society as a whole!  I agree</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or society as a whole !
I agree</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or society as a whole!
I agree</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885394</id>
	<title>Public Domain.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264349520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a fellow artist I'd like to say that most of her work should be in the public domain anyway. Quit lobbying for a copyright system that really screws everyone over. Do you have enough money to be comfortable? Then shut the fuck up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a fellow artist I 'd like to say that most of her work should be in the public domain anyway .
Quit lobbying for a copyright system that really screws everyone over .
Do you have enough money to be comfortable ?
Then shut the fuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a fellow artist I'd like to say that most of her work should be in the public domain anyway.
Quit lobbying for a copyright system that really screws everyone over.
Do you have enough money to be comfortable?
Then shut the fuck up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884720</id>
	<title>Who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264344540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't say I've heard of 'em.  Next....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't say I 've heard of 'em .
Next... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't say I've heard of 'em.
Next....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885850</id>
	<title>Re:the parental model</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1264353120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I love how all the people proposing these theories here have never published a book that actually could be sold for real money.</p></div><p>No, we for the most part create far more useful works. You may know them as "software" and "mathematics".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how all the people proposing these theories here have never published a book that actually could be sold for real money.No , we for the most part create far more useful works .
You may know them as " software " and " mathematics " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how all the people proposing these theories here have never published a book that actually could be sold for real money.No, we for the most part create far more useful works.
You may know them as "software" and "mathematics".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30889962</id>
	<title>Re:Doublethink</title>
	<author>jefu</author>
	<datestamp>1264434780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect that the publisher (and related folks) who own the rights to her works are wining and dining her, and in the process telling her how awful this whole situation is.   A bit of operant conditioning as it were - training her that certain stances result in pleasurable times, do that often enough and I suspect the subject will not only support the conditioned stance, but even find better justifications for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that the publisher ( and related folks ) who own the rights to her works are wining and dining her , and in the process telling her how awful this whole situation is .
A bit of operant conditioning as it were - training her that certain stances result in pleasurable times , do that often enough and I suspect the subject will not only support the conditioned stance , but even find better justifications for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that the publisher (and related folks) who own the rights to her works are wining and dining her, and in the process telling her how awful this whole situation is.
A bit of operant conditioning as it were - training her that certain stances result in pleasurable times, do that often enough and I suspect the subject will not only support the conditioned stance, but even find better justifications for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884682</id>
	<title>huh?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264344300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media."</p><p>ok</p><p>"All authors hope for that. But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it."</p><p>huh? you just logically countered your initial statement</p><p>either its free, or there's control. i love ursula k leguin. in fact, i noticed cameron ripped her off with the "every plant is a node in a giant neural network" idea in avatar. it was a short story of hers, i forget the name, and she played it like a horror movie instead. but leguin isn't seeing the bigger picture here, despite her prodigious and keen powers of insight as shown in her works of fiction. kinda like the mathematics professor who can't balance his checkbook, i guess</p><p>"We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control."</p><p>i agree 100\%. except that already happened many decades ago, and has only gotten worse. existing copyright law no longer serves creators. it serves distributors</p><p>such that creators today actually make out better releasing for free, and deriving ancillary revenue streams from their popularity: advertising, endorsements, personalized content, movie deals, etc.</p><p>current copyright law will not serve you to make more money than this all-free-on-the-internet model. it will only serve some asshole in a distribution company. a distribution company that serves no function anymore in the world of the internet</p><p>the internet has made ip law defunct. and this aids creators: direct interaction with your consumers. the only people that are hurt is the parasitic middlemen in between</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The free and open dissemination of information and of literature , as it exists in our Public Libraries , can and should exist in the electronic media .
" ok " All authors hope for that .
But we can not have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it. " huh ?
you just logically countered your initial statementeither its free , or there 's control .
i love ursula k leguin .
in fact , i noticed cameron ripped her off with the " every plant is a node in a giant neural network " idea in avatar .
it was a short story of hers , i forget the name , and she played it like a horror movie instead .
but leguin is n't seeing the bigger picture here , despite her prodigious and keen powers of insight as shown in her works of fiction .
kinda like the mathematics professor who ca n't balance his checkbook , i guess " We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control .
" i agree 100 \ % .
except that already happened many decades ago , and has only gotten worse .
existing copyright law no longer serves creators .
it serves distributorssuch that creators today actually make out better releasing for free , and deriving ancillary revenue streams from their popularity : advertising , endorsements , personalized content , movie deals , etc.current copyright law will not serve you to make more money than this all-free-on-the-internet model .
it will only serve some asshole in a distribution company .
a distribution company that serves no function anymore in the world of the internetthe internet has made ip law defunct .
and this aids creators : direct interaction with your consumers .
the only people that are hurt is the parasitic middlemen in between</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media.
"ok"All authors hope for that.
But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it."huh?
you just logically countered your initial statementeither its free, or there's control.
i love ursula k leguin.
in fact, i noticed cameron ripped her off with the "every plant is a node in a giant neural network" idea in avatar.
it was a short story of hers, i forget the name, and she played it like a horror movie instead.
but leguin isn't seeing the bigger picture here, despite her prodigious and keen powers of insight as shown in her works of fiction.
kinda like the mathematics professor who can't balance his checkbook, i guess"We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control.
"i agree 100\%.
except that already happened many decades ago, and has only gotten worse.
existing copyright law no longer serves creators.
it serves distributorssuch that creators today actually make out better releasing for free, and deriving ancillary revenue streams from their popularity: advertising, endorsements, personalized content, movie deals, etc.current copyright law will not serve you to make more money than this all-free-on-the-internet model.
it will only serve some asshole in a distribution company.
a distribution company that serves no function anymore in the world of the internetthe internet has made ip law defunct.
and this aids creators: direct interaction with your consumers.
the only people that are hurt is the parasitic middlemen in between</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884842</id>
	<title>Re:Limited times</title>
	<author>MrHanky</author>
	<datestamp>1264345200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what's your alternative?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what 's your alternative ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what's your alternative?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885890</id>
	<title>Unreasonable</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264353480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        If copyright laws were the same way as they were 100 years ago there would be cooperation from the public. But these days copyright has gone way too far in many ways including fair use restrictions as well as lasting for way too many years. Content creators are getting too much protection as it now stands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If copyright laws were the same way as they were 100 years ago there would be cooperation from the public .
But these days copyright has gone way too far in many ways including fair use restrictions as well as lasting for way too many years .
Content creators are getting too much protection as it now stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        If copyright laws were the same way as they were 100 years ago there would be cooperation from the public.
But these days copyright has gone way too far in many ways including fair use restrictions as well as lasting for way too many years.
Content creators are getting too much protection as it now stands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886046</id>
	<title>Re:The French would disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264355160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>hey hey hey... France is life +70 (+30 if you died in service). U.S. is 95years or life + 70, or 120years (from creation if not published). Meh though, Mexico is Life +100.</htmltext>
<tokenext>hey hey hey... France is life + 70 ( + 30 if you died in service ) .
U.S. is 95years or life + 70 , or 120years ( from creation if not published ) .
Meh though , Mexico is Life + 100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey hey hey... France is life +70 (+30 if you died in service).
U.S. is 95years or life + 70, or 120years (from creation if not published).
Meh though, Mexico is Life +100.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30889898</id>
	<title>Re:Bounty System.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264434480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stephen King tried something like this and it failed. Why? Because no-one wants to read part of a book and then wait in the hope that they may get to see the rest later. If an already famous author can't swing this then I don't think Master Moose can...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stephen King tried something like this and it failed .
Why ? Because no-one wants to read part of a book and then wait in the hope that they may get to see the rest later .
If an already famous author ca n't swing this then I do n't think Master Moose can.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stephen King tried something like this and it failed.
Why? Because no-one wants to read part of a book and then wait in the hope that they may get to see the rest later.
If an already famous author can't swing this then I don't think Master Moose can...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887238</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1264410720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths?</p></div></blockquote><p>You're not. Anything you physically own before you die will be passed on to your family (local laws permitting), just like any other person on the planet... house, money, car, copies of your books, porn mags, etc.</p><p>The real question should be: why are writers and creators singled out for \_EXTRA\_ rights which aren't given to anyone else? If I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?</p></div></blockquote><p>Except your example is nothing like the situation a writers family is in.  A writers family is in the same situation I am - I inherited a piece of property, and I have every right to insist the tenants on that property continue to pay rent.  I inherited a sales contract on an automobile, and I have every right to insist the payments be made on time and in full. Etc. etc..<br>
&nbsp; <br>So no, the writers family isn't any different.  They inherit property and contracts the same as you and me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths ? You 're not .
Anything you physically own before you die will be passed on to your family ( local laws permitting ) , just like any other person on the planet... house , money , car , copies of your books , porn mags , etc.The real question should be : why are writers and creators singled out for \ _EXTRA \ _ rights which are n't given to anyone else ?
If I die , my kids wo n't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary , why should writers be any different ? Except your example is nothing like the situation a writers family is in .
A writers family is in the same situation I am - I inherited a piece of property , and I have every right to insist the tenants on that property continue to pay rent .
I inherited a sales contract on an automobile , and I have every right to insist the payments be made on time and in full .
Etc. etc. .   So no , the writers family is n't any different .
They inherit property and contracts the same as you and me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths?You're not.
Anything you physically own before you die will be passed on to your family (local laws permitting), just like any other person on the planet... house, money, car, copies of your books, porn mags, etc.The real question should be: why are writers and creators singled out for \_EXTRA\_ rights which aren't given to anyone else?
If I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?Except your example is nothing like the situation a writers family is in.
A writers family is in the same situation I am - I inherited a piece of property, and I have every right to insist the tenants on that property continue to pay rent.
I inherited a sales contract on an automobile, and I have every right to insist the payments be made on time and in full.
Etc. etc..
  So no, the writers family isn't any different.
They inherit property and contracts the same as you and me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884636</id>
	<title>Exactly</title>
	<author>Scareduck</author>
	<datestamp>1264343940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Le Guin is one of my least favorite writers. This reminds me why.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Le Guin is one of my least favorite writers .
This reminds me why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Le Guin is one of my least favorite writers.
This reminds me why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886922</id>
	<title>Re:Limited times</title>
	<author>j00r0m4nc3r</author>
	<datestamp>1264450320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it</i> <br> <br>
I don't see how it's free and open if it's being controlled by those who write it... She is in complete contradiction of herself here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But we can not have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it I do n't see how it 's free and open if it 's being controlled by those who write it... She is in complete contradiction of herself here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it  
I don't see how it's free and open if it's being controlled by those who write it... She is in complete contradiction of herself here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885844</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1264353000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about 15 years if you die or not. Fair?<br> <br>That said the goal of copyright law is simply this: To encourage artists to produce.<br> <br>Not complicated. Artists need to get paid enough to continue doing what they do. They need to be able to make enough to encourage the arts production. That's all. Do you think artists are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to produce if they know that their grandchildren will be getting a cut? The answer is of course not. And as your mentioned, these days most artists rights are owned by corporations. So the grandkids aren't seeing that money anyways.<br> <br>As a side note your legacy is meant to involve saved money in the form of an inheritance. Desk jockeys don't leave their children penniless, they save things in a bank and their kids get it when they die. I see no reason why artists should be any different. Your example of dying right after releasing a book is easily fixed by having a set time limit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about 15 years if you die or not .
Fair ? That said the goal of copyright law is simply this : To encourage artists to produce .
Not complicated .
Artists need to get paid enough to continue doing what they do .
They need to be able to make enough to encourage the arts production .
That 's all .
Do you think artists are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to produce if they know that their grandchildren will be getting a cut ?
The answer is of course not .
And as your mentioned , these days most artists rights are owned by corporations .
So the grandkids are n't seeing that money anyways .
As a side note your legacy is meant to involve saved money in the form of an inheritance .
Desk jockeys do n't leave their children penniless , they save things in a bank and their kids get it when they die .
I see no reason why artists should be any different .
Your example of dying right after releasing a book is easily fixed by having a set time limit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about 15 years if you die or not.
Fair? That said the goal of copyright law is simply this: To encourage artists to produce.
Not complicated.
Artists need to get paid enough to continue doing what they do.
They need to be able to make enough to encourage the arts production.
That's all.
Do you think artists are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to produce if they know that their grandchildren will be getting a cut?
The answer is of course not.
And as your mentioned, these days most artists rights are owned by corporations.
So the grandkids aren't seeing that money anyways.
As a side note your legacy is meant to involve saved money in the form of an inheritance.
Desk jockeys don't leave their children penniless, they save things in a bank and their kids get it when they die.
I see no reason why artists should be any different.
Your example of dying right after releasing a book is easily fixed by having a set time limit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885256</id>
	<title>Re:Bounty System.</title>
	<author>adamkennedy</author>
	<datestamp>1264348140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I worry about whether you will ever finish the book, why would I bother paying for the first chapter (or even bother starting to read the story at all)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I worry about whether you will ever finish the book , why would I bother paying for the first chapter ( or even bother starting to read the story at all )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I worry about whether you will ever finish the book, why would I bother paying for the first chapter (or even bother starting to read the story at all)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886170</id>
	<title>Re:Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264356240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apples and oranges. You get a retirement, I don't. You get benefits, I don't. All I potentially own is the work I create. There are no "extra rights" I keep hearing about artist simply want the same rights as anyone else. On your death no one tries to take your property so why should people take my property from my family? If IP rights are so worthless then why is everyone so determined to claim them? The artists are caught in the middle. On one side I've got publishers saying I shouldn't be allowed to keep my rights and on the other side I have people that want my work claiming I shouldn't have the rights in the first place. No one is looking out for the artist in this fight. Trust me I know first hand that without lawyers you have no rights. I worked four years on a property and had it literally stolen from me before it was released, I'm talking taken from my house stolen. The law wasn't interested and said it was a civil matter. I had put every cent into developing it so I had no money left for lawyers. The end result, I had no rights and now I'm being told I have too many! There is no system in place to protect artist rights. If some breaks into your house and steals your TV the police are there. If they steal writing no one cares. My personal situation is too complex for a post but my point is there is no part of government enforcing rights. If you have no lawyers by definition you have no rights. Try spending four years of your life and everything you had in the world on a project only to have it stolen. It's extremely upsetting to be then told I have "EXTRA\_ rights". Artists have no inherent rights and the laws are only enforced by lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apples and oranges .
You get a retirement , I do n't .
You get benefits , I do n't .
All I potentially own is the work I create .
There are no " extra rights " I keep hearing about artist simply want the same rights as anyone else .
On your death no one tries to take your property so why should people take my property from my family ?
If IP rights are so worthless then why is everyone so determined to claim them ?
The artists are caught in the middle .
On one side I 've got publishers saying I should n't be allowed to keep my rights and on the other side I have people that want my work claiming I should n't have the rights in the first place .
No one is looking out for the artist in this fight .
Trust me I know first hand that without lawyers you have no rights .
I worked four years on a property and had it literally stolen from me before it was released , I 'm talking taken from my house stolen .
The law was n't interested and said it was a civil matter .
I had put every cent into developing it so I had no money left for lawyers .
The end result , I had no rights and now I 'm being told I have too many !
There is no system in place to protect artist rights .
If some breaks into your house and steals your TV the police are there .
If they steal writing no one cares .
My personal situation is too complex for a post but my point is there is no part of government enforcing rights .
If you have no lawyers by definition you have no rights .
Try spending four years of your life and everything you had in the world on a project only to have it stolen .
It 's extremely upsetting to be then told I have " EXTRA \ _ rights " .
Artists have no inherent rights and the laws are only enforced by lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apples and oranges.
You get a retirement, I don't.
You get benefits, I don't.
All I potentially own is the work I create.
There are no "extra rights" I keep hearing about artist simply want the same rights as anyone else.
On your death no one tries to take your property so why should people take my property from my family?
If IP rights are so worthless then why is everyone so determined to claim them?
The artists are caught in the middle.
On one side I've got publishers saying I shouldn't be allowed to keep my rights and on the other side I have people that want my work claiming I shouldn't have the rights in the first place.
No one is looking out for the artist in this fight.
Trust me I know first hand that without lawyers you have no rights.
I worked four years on a property and had it literally stolen from me before it was released, I'm talking taken from my house stolen.
The law wasn't interested and said it was a civil matter.
I had put every cent into developing it so I had no money left for lawyers.
The end result, I had no rights and now I'm being told I have too many!
There is no system in place to protect artist rights.
If some breaks into your house and steals your TV the police are there.
If they steal writing no one cares.
My personal situation is too complex for a post but my point is there is no part of government enforcing rights.
If you have no lawyers by definition you have no rights.
Try spending four years of your life and everything you had in the world on a project only to have it stolen.
It's extremely upsetting to be then told I have "EXTRA\_ rights".
Artists have no inherent rights and the laws are only enforced by lawyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885462</id>
	<title>Re:the parental model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264350180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>including society as a hole.</p></div><p>I've never seen it written quite so... Freudian.</p><p>How's that pronounced exactly?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>including society as a hole.I 've never seen it written quite so... Freudian.How 's that pronounced exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>including society as a hole.I've never seen it written quite so... Freudian.How's that pronounced exactly?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30904244</id>
	<title>her books suck anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264521060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>copyright: while the author lives and no longer. should unforeseen accidents occur, the family can petition for 15yr extension (1 time only) so they dont become destitute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>copyright : while the author lives and no longer .
should unforeseen accidents occur , the family can petition for 15yr extension ( 1 time only ) so they dont become destitute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>copyright: while the author lives and no longer.
should unforeseen accidents occur, the family can petition for 15yr extension (1 time only) so they dont become destitute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885010</id>
	<title>Miracle Jones?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264346400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, with a name like that, what would she choose as her porn name?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , with a name like that , what would she choose as her porn name ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, with a name like that, what would she choose as her porn name?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886038</id>
	<title>Re:huh?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1264355040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>either its free, or there's control. i love ursula k leguin. in fact, i noticed cameron ripped her off with the "every plant is a node in a giant neural network" idea in avatar. it was a short story of hers, i forget the name, and she played it like a horror movie instead.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Using ideas from frothing-at-the-mouth copyright absolutists like LeGuin is Cameron's stock in trade; Harlan Ellison successfully sued him over \_Terminator\_ for the similarity between the opening sequence and Ellison's story \_The Warriors\_.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>either its free , or there 's control .
i love ursula k leguin .
in fact , i noticed cameron ripped her off with the " every plant is a node in a giant neural network " idea in avatar .
it was a short story of hers , i forget the name , and she played it like a horror movie instead .
Using ideas from frothing-at-the-mouth copyright absolutists like LeGuin is Cameron 's stock in trade ; Harlan Ellison successfully sued him over \ _Terminator \ _ for the similarity between the opening sequence and Ellison 's story \ _The Warriors \ _ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>either its free, or there's control.
i love ursula k leguin.
in fact, i noticed cameron ripped her off with the "every plant is a node in a giant neural network" idea in avatar.
it was a short story of hers, i forget the name, and she played it like a horror movie instead.
Using ideas from frothing-at-the-mouth copyright absolutists like LeGuin is Cameron's stock in trade; Harlan Ellison successfully sued him over \_Terminator\_ for the similarity between the opening sequence and Ellison's story \_The Warriors\_.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888068</id>
	<title>Bad idea</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264421040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would also void their contract with author, allowing their competitors to step in. And what is worse, allow free and legitimate digital redistribution. Bye-bye DRM and pay-for-copy business model. No, they would fight to keep her alive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would also void their contract with author , allowing their competitors to step in .
And what is worse , allow free and legitimate digital redistribution .
Bye-bye DRM and pay-for-copy business model .
No , they would fight to keep her alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would also void their contract with author, allowing their competitors to step in.
And what is worse, allow free and legitimate digital redistribution.
Bye-bye DRM and pay-for-copy business model.
No, they would fight to keep her alive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885024</id>
	<title>LeGuin's stance on copyright is so 20th century</title>
	<author>kasper\_souren</author>
	<datestamp>1264346520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LeGuin wrote some very interesting books.  Unfortunately her stance on copyright is a bit too 20th centure to my taste.</p><p>
Doctorow: "I did this with the understanding that reproducing, for the purposes of commentary, a single paragraph originally published in a noncommercial venue, was fair use under 17USC, the American copyright statute.

Ms Le Guin disagrees, and though I haven't heard from her personally, my understanding is that she disagrees on the basis that taking the whole story can't be fair use. I have taken the piece down. The last thing I wanted to do was quote Ms Le Guin against her wishes, and had I known sooner that she objected to being quoted, I would have removed it sooner. "  <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/14/an-apology-to-ursula.html" title="boingboing.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/14/an-apology-to-ursula.html</a> [boingboing.net]
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>LeGuin wrote some very interesting books .
Unfortunately her stance on copyright is a bit too 20th centure to my taste .
Doctorow : " I did this with the understanding that reproducing , for the purposes of commentary , a single paragraph originally published in a noncommercial venue , was fair use under 17USC , the American copyright statute .
Ms Le Guin disagrees , and though I have n't heard from her personally , my understanding is that she disagrees on the basis that taking the whole story ca n't be fair use .
I have taken the piece down .
The last thing I wanted to do was quote Ms Le Guin against her wishes , and had I known sooner that she objected to being quoted , I would have removed it sooner .
" http : //www.boingboing.net/2007/10/14/an-apology-to-ursula.html [ boingboing.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LeGuin wrote some very interesting books.
Unfortunately her stance on copyright is a bit too 20th centure to my taste.
Doctorow: "I did this with the understanding that reproducing, for the purposes of commentary, a single paragraph originally published in a noncommercial venue, was fair use under 17USC, the American copyright statute.
Ms Le Guin disagrees, and though I haven't heard from her personally, my understanding is that she disagrees on the basis that taking the whole story can't be fair use.
I have taken the piece down.
The last thing I wanted to do was quote Ms Le Guin against her wishes, and had I known sooner that she objected to being quoted, I would have removed it sooner.
"  http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/14/an-apology-to-ursula.html [boingboing.net]

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884550</id>
	<title>Uhh, some of the best benefits are NO control...</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1264343460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the beauty of the library is the copyright owner/author/interest holder is NOT able to control access to the work.  How many publishers would love to say "this book is for retail sale only: all lending is prohibited" on all their books?</p><p>Sometimes, the interest is maximized when the copyright owner/author/interest holder does NOT have control.</p><p>I think, under a slight variation (ALL others can be under the same terms as google), the proposed Google settlement would be a good thing.</p><p>(Of course, with Google getting effective exclusivity under this agreement, I think its a bad thing, but for a very different reason).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the beauty of the library is the copyright owner/author/interest holder is NOT able to control access to the work .
How many publishers would love to say " this book is for retail sale only : all lending is prohibited " on all their books ? Sometimes , the interest is maximized when the copyright owner/author/interest holder does NOT have control.I think , under a slight variation ( ALL others can be under the same terms as google ) , the proposed Google settlement would be a good thing .
( Of course , with Google getting effective exclusivity under this agreement , I think its a bad thing , but for a very different reason ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the beauty of the library is the copyright owner/author/interest holder is NOT able to control access to the work.
How many publishers would love to say "this book is for retail sale only: all lending is prohibited" on all their books?Sometimes, the interest is maximized when the copyright owner/author/interest holder does NOT have control.I think, under a slight variation (ALL others can be under the same terms as google), the proposed Google settlement would be a good thing.
(Of course, with Google getting effective exclusivity under this agreement, I think its a bad thing, but for a very different reason).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464</id>
	<title>Author's deserve to be paid!</title>
	<author>Tobenisstinky</author>
	<datestamp>1264342680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all for electronic distribution, as long as the author is still paid for their work; but perhaps they become public domain upon their death; none of this estate stuff...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for electronic distribution , as long as the author is still paid for their work ; but perhaps they become public domain upon their death ; none of this estate stuff.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for electronic distribution, as long as the author is still paid for their work; but perhaps they become public domain upon their death; none of this estate stuff...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884706</id>
	<title>Re:Her statement seems inconsistent.</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264344480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!</p></div><p>Her statements are contradictory, but not for this reason. In fact, you have failed the semantics test. Copyright holders most certainly have control over the dissemination of information in books in public libraries, including eBooks. You must purchase one copy for each loan you wish to make. Libraries use DRM on internet eBook loaning (except as permitted by the publisher) to prevent multiple-loaning.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries ! Her statements are contradictory , but not for this reason .
In fact , you have failed the semantics test .
Copyright holders most certainly have control over the dissemination of information in books in public libraries , including eBooks .
You must purchase one copy for each loan you wish to make .
Libraries use DRM on internet eBook loaning ( except as permitted by the publisher ) to prevent multiple-loaning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!Her statements are contradictory, but not for this reason.
In fact, you have failed the semantics test.
Copyright holders most certainly have control over the dissemination of information in books in public libraries, including eBooks.
You must purchase one copy for each loan you wish to make.
Libraries use DRM on internet eBook loaning (except as permitted by the publisher) to prevent multiple-loaning.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30893064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30951722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30889962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30905982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30890998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30893704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30889304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30889898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30905918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30890110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30900198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30900274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_221218_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30893704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30889898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30900198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30890998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30905982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30889962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30900274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30893064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30890110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30905918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885108
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888044
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887376
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886412
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30888000
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887238
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30951722
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30891698
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30886170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30885024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30889304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30887734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_221218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_221218.30884458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
