<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_12_1832257</id>
	<title>Is Plagiarism In Literature Just Sampling?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265968560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ardent99 writes <i>"According to the NY Times today, Helene Hegemann's first book has been moving up the best-seller list in Germany and is a finalist for a major book prize. While originally this was notable because Hegemann is only 17 and this is her first book, and so earned praise as a prodigy, what's interesting now about this story is that she has been caught plagiarizing many passages in the book. Amazingly, she has not denied it, but instead claims there is nothing wrong with it. She claims that she is part of a new generation that has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/world/europe/12germany.html">grown up with mixing and sampling in all media</a>, including music and art, and this is legitimate in modern culture. Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal? Is this the ultimate in cynicism, or is it simply a brash attempt to get away with something now that she's been caught? Is her claim to legitimacy compromised by the fact that she only admitted it after it was discovered by someone else?  And finally, if 'sampling' is not acceptable in literature, is this reason to rethink the legitimacy of musical sampling?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ardent99 writes " According to the NY Times today , Helene Hegemann 's first book has been moving up the best-seller list in Germany and is a finalist for a major book prize .
While originally this was notable because Hegemann is only 17 and this is her first book , and so earned praise as a prodigy , what 's interesting now about this story is that she has been caught plagiarizing many passages in the book .
Amazingly , she has not denied it , but instead claims there is nothing wrong with it .
She claims that she is part of a new generation that has grown up with mixing and sampling in all media , including music and art , and this is legitimate in modern culture .
Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated , but seen as normal ?
Is this the ultimate in cynicism , or is it simply a brash attempt to get away with something now that she 's been caught ?
Is her claim to legitimacy compromised by the fact that she only admitted it after it was discovered by someone else ?
And finally , if 'sampling ' is not acceptable in literature , is this reason to rethink the legitimacy of musical sampling ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ardent99 writes "According to the NY Times today, Helene Hegemann's first book has been moving up the best-seller list in Germany and is a finalist for a major book prize.
While originally this was notable because Hegemann is only 17 and this is her first book, and so earned praise as a prodigy, what's interesting now about this story is that she has been caught plagiarizing many passages in the book.
Amazingly, she has not denied it, but instead claims there is nothing wrong with it.
She claims that she is part of a new generation that has grown up with mixing and sampling in all media, including music and art, and this is legitimate in modern culture.
Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?
Is this the ultimate in cynicism, or is it simply a brash attempt to get away with something now that she's been caught?
Is her claim to legitimacy compromised by the fact that she only admitted it after it was discovered by someone else?
And finally, if 'sampling' is not acceptable in literature, is this reason to rethink the legitimacy of musical sampling?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212</id>
	<title>Whee</title>
	<author>mewsenews</author>
	<datestamp>1265972460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello, kdawson.</p><blockquote><div><p>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?</p></div></blockquote><p>No.</p><blockquote><div><p>Is this the ultimate in cynicism, or is it simply a brash attempt to get away with something now that she's been caught?</p></div></blockquote><p>Who cares?</p><blockquote><div><p>Is her claim to legitimacy compromised by the fact that she only admitted it after it was discovered by someone else?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes.</p><blockquote><div><p>And finally, if 'sampling' is not acceptable in literature, is this reason to rethink the legitimacy of musical sampling?</p></div></blockquote><p>No.</p><p>I might read the article next time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , kdawson.Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated , but seen as normal ? No.Is this the ultimate in cynicism , or is it simply a brash attempt to get away with something now that she 's been caught ? Who cares ? Is her claim to legitimacy compromised by the fact that she only admitted it after it was discovered by someone else ? Yes.And finally , if 'sampling ' is not acceptable in literature , is this reason to rethink the legitimacy of musical sampling ? No.I might read the article next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, kdawson.Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?No.Is this the ultimate in cynicism, or is it simply a brash attempt to get away with something now that she's been caught?Who cares?Is her claim to legitimacy compromised by the fact that she only admitted it after it was discovered by someone else?Yes.And finally, if 'sampling' is not acceptable in literature, is this reason to rethink the legitimacy of musical sampling?No.I might read the article next time.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372</id>
	<title>Plagiarism and copyright violation</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265972940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
As someone who is only slightly older than she is. Yes, this is plagiarism. I'm TAing now and if a student handed in something like this we'd fail her. No question. They might even go in front of a disciplinary committee and certainly would if this were not the first time.
</p><p>
This is also a gross abuse of copyright. I'm not talking about the evil "oh this has been copyrighted for 70s years" copyright, or even using copyright for non-commercial uses. This is classic copyright violation for her own commercial use. That's precisely what sensible copyrights prevent you from copying. And it isn't like these are short enough passages that there's even any real remixing but rather long sections and the like.
</p><p>
The fact that she didn't acknowledge the sources makes the whole thing all the more egregious and shows that she really probably knew what she was doing was wrong. If not, she was so ignorant that it didn't occur to her that this might be a problem. Either way, it is deeply unimpressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who is only slightly older than she is .
Yes , this is plagiarism .
I 'm TAing now and if a student handed in something like this we 'd fail her .
No question .
They might even go in front of a disciplinary committee and certainly would if this were not the first time .
This is also a gross abuse of copyright .
I 'm not talking about the evil " oh this has been copyrighted for 70s years " copyright , or even using copyright for non-commercial uses .
This is classic copyright violation for her own commercial use .
That 's precisely what sensible copyrights prevent you from copying .
And it is n't like these are short enough passages that there 's even any real remixing but rather long sections and the like .
The fact that she did n't acknowledge the sources makes the whole thing all the more egregious and shows that she really probably knew what she was doing was wrong .
If not , she was so ignorant that it did n't occur to her that this might be a problem .
Either way , it is deeply unimpressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As someone who is only slightly older than she is.
Yes, this is plagiarism.
I'm TAing now and if a student handed in something like this we'd fail her.
No question.
They might even go in front of a disciplinary committee and certainly would if this were not the first time.
This is also a gross abuse of copyright.
I'm not talking about the evil "oh this has been copyrighted for 70s years" copyright, or even using copyright for non-commercial uses.
This is classic copyright violation for her own commercial use.
That's precisely what sensible copyrights prevent you from copying.
And it isn't like these are short enough passages that there's even any real remixing but rather long sections and the like.
The fact that she didn't acknowledge the sources makes the whole thing all the more egregious and shows that she really probably knew what she was doing was wrong.
If not, she was so ignorant that it didn't occur to her that this might be a problem.
Either way, it is deeply unimpressive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125872</id>
	<title>Re:The most interesting sentence in the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266063360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A third and more classical way of portraying copyright is the protection of foundational ideas. Assume that a book has a message and/or an emotional response it wants to evoke from you. Is a distillation of that message or emotional response still doing the same thing? How about when it's taken completely out of context? I think the underlying fear beyond copyrighted books is that when you cater to the lowest common denominator by recycling things that have not originated with you, you stop thinking critically. Eventually the original idea becomes so watered down with schmaltz, with pandering drivel, or with oversimplification, that it ceases to be challenging emotionally or intellectually.</p><p>Whatever else the girl has done, she's distorted the author's intent towards her own ambition, and if the most compelling reason she can give for doing so is that it's <i>just how things are these days</i>, she's doing the worst disservice possible to her readership. She's telling them that what has been written --what has come before her-- is sufficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A third and more classical way of portraying copyright is the protection of foundational ideas .
Assume that a book has a message and/or an emotional response it wants to evoke from you .
Is a distillation of that message or emotional response still doing the same thing ?
How about when it 's taken completely out of context ?
I think the underlying fear beyond copyrighted books is that when you cater to the lowest common denominator by recycling things that have not originated with you , you stop thinking critically .
Eventually the original idea becomes so watered down with schmaltz , with pandering drivel , or with oversimplification , that it ceases to be challenging emotionally or intellectually.Whatever else the girl has done , she 's distorted the author 's intent towards her own ambition , and if the most compelling reason she can give for doing so is that it 's just how things are these days , she 's doing the worst disservice possible to her readership .
She 's telling them that what has been written --what has come before her-- is sufficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A third and more classical way of portraying copyright is the protection of foundational ideas.
Assume that a book has a message and/or an emotional response it wants to evoke from you.
Is a distillation of that message or emotional response still doing the same thing?
How about when it's taken completely out of context?
I think the underlying fear beyond copyrighted books is that when you cater to the lowest common denominator by recycling things that have not originated with you, you stop thinking critically.
Eventually the original idea becomes so watered down with schmaltz, with pandering drivel, or with oversimplification, that it ceases to be challenging emotionally or intellectually.Whatever else the girl has done, she's distorted the author's intent towards her own ambition, and if the most compelling reason she can give for doing so is that it's just how things are these days, she's doing the worst disservice possible to her readership.
She's telling them that what has been written --what has come before her-- is sufficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121146</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts on this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265975460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?</p></div><p>It was the best of times, it was the worst of times;</p></div><p>It was a dark and stormy night.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated , but seen as normal ? It was the best of times , it was the worst of times ; It was a dark and stormy night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?It was the best of times, it was the worst of times;It was a dark and stormy night.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121226</id>
	<title>Re:Plagiarism and copyright violation</title>
	<author>Nethemas the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1265975820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not entirely certain that one may call this an apples to apples comparison.  For starters the student is presumed to be turning in an all "original" work, you are implying that that is a requirement.  A novel on the other hand does not come with the same requirements.  Unless you're Neil Stephenson, it isn't "common" to include a bibliography or "works cited" in your fictional novel.  This girl's work might extend past traditional expectations of written authorship but is by no means the exception.  This girl points to modern day "mash-ups" and music remixes as explanation, however literary history as well as art generally has a long tradition of "borrowing" from others' work with varying degrees of obviousness.</p><p>The fact that she borrowed from the work of others makes her accomplishment of assembling the surrounding words no less impressive.  Few people could lift a couple dozen pages from Walt Whitman or Charles Dickens and assemble a novel around them that made clean transitions let alone seamlessly tie it together to form a work worthy praise from the literary establishment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not entirely certain that one may call this an apples to apples comparison .
For starters the student is presumed to be turning in an all " original " work , you are implying that that is a requirement .
A novel on the other hand does not come with the same requirements .
Unless you 're Neil Stephenson , it is n't " common " to include a bibliography or " works cited " in your fictional novel .
This girl 's work might extend past traditional expectations of written authorship but is by no means the exception .
This girl points to modern day " mash-ups " and music remixes as explanation , however literary history as well as art generally has a long tradition of " borrowing " from others ' work with varying degrees of obviousness.The fact that she borrowed from the work of others makes her accomplishment of assembling the surrounding words no less impressive .
Few people could lift a couple dozen pages from Walt Whitman or Charles Dickens and assemble a novel around them that made clean transitions let alone seamlessly tie it together to form a work worthy praise from the literary establishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not entirely certain that one may call this an apples to apples comparison.
For starters the student is presumed to be turning in an all "original" work, you are implying that that is a requirement.
A novel on the other hand does not come with the same requirements.
Unless you're Neil Stephenson, it isn't "common" to include a bibliography or "works cited" in your fictional novel.
This girl's work might extend past traditional expectations of written authorship but is by no means the exception.
This girl points to modern day "mash-ups" and music remixes as explanation, however literary history as well as art generally has a long tradition of "borrowing" from others' work with varying degrees of obviousness.The fact that she borrowed from the work of others makes her accomplishment of assembling the surrounding words no less impressive.
Few people could lift a couple dozen pages from Walt Whitman or Charles Dickens and assemble a novel around them that made clean transitions let alone seamlessly tie it together to form a work worthy praise from the literary establishment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31136722</id>
	<title>The author is a child.</title>
	<author>Morrigel</author>
	<datestamp>1266140040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At seventeen, she is not considered a morally or legally responsible individual in my country--I have no idea where the law stands on this in Germany, but to me she is just a kid.

The people I consider to blame in this scenario are the editor and the publisher.  When the girl's plagiarism was proven, they should have withdrawn the book, apologized to the public, and re-released it a few months later when she had been given time to clean up the text with original passages.

As is often the case of the adults who surround evil, lawless, and morally bankrupt children, they are full collaborators in her criminality and without them, she would not be able to harm anyone, including herself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At seventeen , she is not considered a morally or legally responsible individual in my country--I have no idea where the law stands on this in Germany , but to me she is just a kid .
The people I consider to blame in this scenario are the editor and the publisher .
When the girl 's plagiarism was proven , they should have withdrawn the book , apologized to the public , and re-released it a few months later when she had been given time to clean up the text with original passages .
As is often the case of the adults who surround evil , lawless , and morally bankrupt children , they are full collaborators in her criminality and without them , she would not be able to harm anyone , including herself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At seventeen, she is not considered a morally or legally responsible individual in my country--I have no idea where the law stands on this in Germany, but to me she is just a kid.
The people I consider to blame in this scenario are the editor and the publisher.
When the girl's plagiarism was proven, they should have withdrawn the book, apologized to the public, and re-released it a few months later when she had been given time to clean up the text with original passages.
As is often the case of the adults who surround evil, lawless, and morally bankrupt children, they are full collaborators in her criminality and without them, she would not be able to harm anyone, including herself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121782</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief,</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1265978400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"nothing is really original anymore. When you have a planet with a population of nearly 7 billion -- it is fairly easy for me to claim that 99.999\% of everything written, said, or done today, has been done by someone else in the past: including music."</i>
<br> <br>
Complete nonsense. And it should only have taken a little basic application of that math you mention to tell you so.
<br> <br>
There are <b>so many</b> possible combinations of instrument, notes, timing and inflection that you could ask all 7 billion of those people to play an arbitrary 6-note combination on the instrument of their choice, and there is a pretty good possibility that <b>none</b> of them would sound exactly the same to the ear, especially if you include chords. With that many, odds are that some would be very close, but the point is: that's only 6 notes, and 1 instrument! Add a drum or a bass line or some kind of background or other accompaniment and the possibilities grow exponentially. It is easy to see that there are far, far more than 7 billion possible combinations in even just a few seconds of music.
<br> <br>
That is even more true of words. Even if one holds to pretty stringent rules of grammar, there are far, far more than 7 billion legitimate combinations of words in even a single fairly short sentence, much less a paragraph or whole page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" nothing is really original anymore .
When you have a planet with a population of nearly 7 billion -- it is fairly easy for me to claim that 99.999 \ % of everything written , said , or done today , has been done by someone else in the past : including music .
" Complete nonsense .
And it should only have taken a little basic application of that math you mention to tell you so .
There are so many possible combinations of instrument , notes , timing and inflection that you could ask all 7 billion of those people to play an arbitrary 6-note combination on the instrument of their choice , and there is a pretty good possibility that none of them would sound exactly the same to the ear , especially if you include chords .
With that many , odds are that some would be very close , but the point is : that 's only 6 notes , and 1 instrument !
Add a drum or a bass line or some kind of background or other accompaniment and the possibilities grow exponentially .
It is easy to see that there are far , far more than 7 billion possible combinations in even just a few seconds of music .
That is even more true of words .
Even if one holds to pretty stringent rules of grammar , there are far , far more than 7 billion legitimate combinations of words in even a single fairly short sentence , much less a paragraph or whole page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"nothing is really original anymore.
When you have a planet with a population of nearly 7 billion -- it is fairly easy for me to claim that 99.999\% of everything written, said, or done today, has been done by someone else in the past: including music.
"
 
Complete nonsense.
And it should only have taken a little basic application of that math you mention to tell you so.
There are so many possible combinations of instrument, notes, timing and inflection that you could ask all 7 billion of those people to play an arbitrary 6-note combination on the instrument of their choice, and there is a pretty good possibility that none of them would sound exactly the same to the ear, especially if you include chords.
With that many, odds are that some would be very close, but the point is: that's only 6 notes, and 1 instrument!
Add a drum or a bass line or some kind of background or other accompaniment and the possibilities grow exponentially.
It is easy to see that there are far, far more than 7 billion possible combinations in even just a few seconds of music.
That is even more true of words.
Even if one holds to pretty stringent rules of grammar, there are far, far more than 7 billion legitimate combinations of words in even a single fairly short sentence, much less a paragraph or whole page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120322</id>
	<title>Depends</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1265972820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It really depends upon which side of the fence you are on and which party stands to make or lose the most amount of money.  If you side with RIAA or a Publisher, sampling might be an absolute no-no.  If you are the artist and your ideas are being used to create new ones, this could be a form of homage to your talent.  A Zen master once said, "Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery."  Dave Matthews would most likely encourage this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really depends upon which side of the fence you are on and which party stands to make or lose the most amount of money .
If you side with RIAA or a Publisher , sampling might be an absolute no-no .
If you are the artist and your ideas are being used to create new ones , this could be a form of homage to your talent .
A Zen master once said , " Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery .
" Dave Matthews would most likely encourage this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really depends upon which side of the fence you are on and which party stands to make or lose the most amount of money.
If you side with RIAA or a Publisher, sampling might be an absolute no-no.
If you are the artist and your ideas are being used to create new ones, this could be a form of homage to your talent.
A Zen master once said, "Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
"  Dave Matthews would most likely encourage this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124774</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts on this</title>
	<author>chiguy</author>
	<datestamp>1266001200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?</p></div><p>It was the best of times, it was the worst of times;</p></div><p>It was a dark and stormy night.</p></div><p>In a World....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated , but seen as normal ? It was the best of times , it was the worst of times ; It was a dark and stormy night.In a World... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?It was the best of times, it was the worst of times;It was a dark and stormy night.In a World....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31128370</id>
	<title>Re:I Just Can't Agree With This</title>
	<author>EL\_mal0</author>
	<datestamp>1266087240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make some good points, but I would have to disagree with what appears to be the focus of your argument and many, many others on this page: that this is wrong because she plagiarized copyrighted work.  I disagree. This is wrong because she was trying to pass someone else's work as her own.</p><p>It doesn't matter if the work has been out there for hundreds of years, landing it squarely in the public domain. Plagiarism is dishonest, regardless of whether or not it happens to be illegal where you live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make some good points , but I would have to disagree with what appears to be the focus of your argument and many , many others on this page : that this is wrong because she plagiarized copyrighted work .
I disagree .
This is wrong because she was trying to pass someone else 's work as her own.It does n't matter if the work has been out there for hundreds of years , landing it squarely in the public domain .
Plagiarism is dishonest , regardless of whether or not it happens to be illegal where you live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make some good points, but I would have to disagree with what appears to be the focus of your argument and many, many others on this page: that this is wrong because she plagiarized copyrighted work.
I disagree.
This is wrong because she was trying to pass someone else's work as her own.It doesn't matter if the work has been out there for hundreds of years, landing it squarely in the public domain.
Plagiarism is dishonest, regardless of whether or not it happens to be illegal where you live.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125890</id>
	<title>Yes they are different, klutz.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266063600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes they are different, klutz. One is copyright infringement (a civil action) and one is Plagiarism (criminal). Unless JQP claims that she sang those songs she didn't pay for and that's why she didn't pay for them, then yes, they are different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes they are different , klutz .
One is copyright infringement ( a civil action ) and one is Plagiarism ( criminal ) .
Unless JQP claims that she sang those songs she did n't pay for and that 's why she did n't pay for them , then yes , they are different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes they are different, klutz.
One is copyright infringement (a civil action) and one is Plagiarism (criminal).
Unless JQP claims that she sang those songs she didn't pay for and that's why she didn't pay for them, then yes, they are different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31127320</id>
	<title>Repackaging vs. building upon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266079740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are really two issues with regards to the use of someone else's creation.  Whether you're simply trying to repackage their creation to circumvent their property rights for your own financial gain, or whether you're really trying to build upon, reference, or extend their work to create something new and to move the dialogue forward.  The former is clearly wrong.  The latter is clearly not, and within that context, plagiarism, sampling, or copying, regardless of how you want to refer to it, are irrelevant.  As such, every work of art must be judged upon its on merits as a whole, regardless of whatever percentage might be copied from some other work of art.</p><p>As an example, think of a long novel that's very well written up to the end, but the end simply stinks for any number of reasons.  Another author could theoretically copy the first 99\% of that novel and simply re-write the ending.  What if their ending is so much better, that it makes the reader completely re-think the entire story.  That's significant.  You could dismiss their effort as merely plagiarism, but the reality is that the synergy of the new, much better ending, along with the 99\% that has been copied creates a story that is significantly better.</p><p>Edison said that genius is 1\% inspiration, and 99\% perspiration.  If you can transform someone else's creation from mundane to genius by copying 99\% of their hard work and adding your own 1\% of inspiration that is significant.  At that point it really isn't their creation any more.  You've made it your own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are really two issues with regards to the use of someone else 's creation .
Whether you 're simply trying to repackage their creation to circumvent their property rights for your own financial gain , or whether you 're really trying to build upon , reference , or extend their work to create something new and to move the dialogue forward .
The former is clearly wrong .
The latter is clearly not , and within that context , plagiarism , sampling , or copying , regardless of how you want to refer to it , are irrelevant .
As such , every work of art must be judged upon its on merits as a whole , regardless of whatever percentage might be copied from some other work of art.As an example , think of a long novel that 's very well written up to the end , but the end simply stinks for any number of reasons .
Another author could theoretically copy the first 99 \ % of that novel and simply re-write the ending .
What if their ending is so much better , that it makes the reader completely re-think the entire story .
That 's significant .
You could dismiss their effort as merely plagiarism , but the reality is that the synergy of the new , much better ending , along with the 99 \ % that has been copied creates a story that is significantly better.Edison said that genius is 1 \ % inspiration , and 99 \ % perspiration .
If you can transform someone else 's creation from mundane to genius by copying 99 \ % of their hard work and adding your own 1 \ % of inspiration that is significant .
At that point it really is n't their creation any more .
You 've made it your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are really two issues with regards to the use of someone else's creation.
Whether you're simply trying to repackage their creation to circumvent their property rights for your own financial gain, or whether you're really trying to build upon, reference, or extend their work to create something new and to move the dialogue forward.
The former is clearly wrong.
The latter is clearly not, and within that context, plagiarism, sampling, or copying, regardless of how you want to refer to it, are irrelevant.
As such, every work of art must be judged upon its on merits as a whole, regardless of whatever percentage might be copied from some other work of art.As an example, think of a long novel that's very well written up to the end, but the end simply stinks for any number of reasons.
Another author could theoretically copy the first 99\% of that novel and simply re-write the ending.
What if their ending is so much better, that it makes the reader completely re-think the entire story.
That's significant.
You could dismiss their effort as merely plagiarism, but the reality is that the synergy of the new, much better ending, along with the 99\% that has been copied creates a story that is significantly better.Edison said that genius is 1\% inspiration, and 99\% perspiration.
If you can transform someone else's creation from mundane to genius by copying 99\% of their hard work and adding your own 1\% of inspiration that is significant.
At that point it really isn't their creation any more.
You've made it your own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120356</id>
	<title>Re:Whee</title>
	<author>Stargoat</author>
	<datestamp>1265972880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This makes me wish I had mod points.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This makes me wish I had mod points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This makes me wish I had mod points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120500</id>
	<title>Generating sales for the plagiarized book</title>
	<author>NiteMair</author>
	<datestamp>1265973360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As stated in the article, the whole controversy is also generating sales for the lesser-known "Strobo" book that was allegedly plagiarized. That can't be a bad thing.</p><p><a href="http://www.amazon.de/Axolotl-Roadkill-Helene-Hegemann/dp/3550087926/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1266012743&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.de">http://www.amazon.de/Axolotl-Roadkill-Helene-Hegemann/dp/3550087926/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1266012743&amp;sr=8-1</a> [amazon.de]</p><p>Still waiting for copyright enforcement advocates to realize that copyright infringement isn't always a bad thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As stated in the article , the whole controversy is also generating sales for the lesser-known " Strobo " book that was allegedly plagiarized .
That ca n't be a bad thing.http : //www.amazon.de/Axolotl-Roadkill-Helene-Hegemann/dp/3550087926/ref = sr \ _1 \ _1 ? ie = UTF8&amp;s = books&amp;qid = 1266012743&amp;sr = 8-1 [ amazon.de ] Still waiting for copyright enforcement advocates to realize that copyright infringement is n't always a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As stated in the article, the whole controversy is also generating sales for the lesser-known "Strobo" book that was allegedly plagiarized.
That can't be a bad thing.http://www.amazon.de/Axolotl-Roadkill-Helene-Hegemann/dp/3550087926/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1266012743&amp;sr=8-1 [amazon.de]Still waiting for copyright enforcement advocates to realize that copyright infringement isn't always a bad thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120524</id>
	<title>Stop "sampling" my work!</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1265973420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Hey you! Stop "sampling" my work.  I own the rights to ALL those words, and all the remixes, you thieves!
</p><p>
<i>signed: Daniel Webster</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey you !
Stop " sampling " my work .
I own the rights to ALL those words , and all the remixes , you thieves !
signed : Daniel Webster</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Hey you!
Stop "sampling" my work.
I own the rights to ALL those words, and all the remixes, you thieves!
signed: Daniel Webster</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123764</id>
	<title>Plagiarism</title>
	<author>golden age villain</author>
	<datestamp>1265990460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is her claim to legitimacy compromised by the fact that she only admitted it after it was discovered by someone else?</p></div><p>Definitely yes. In the case of electronic music, it is obvious right from the beginning that samples are samples. The creativity resides in the fact that those are assembled in original ways creating a new piece of music. When you copy words, there is no such thing like mixing beats and samples.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is her claim to legitimacy compromised by the fact that she only admitted it after it was discovered by someone else ? Definitely yes .
In the case of electronic music , it is obvious right from the beginning that samples are samples .
The creativity resides in the fact that those are assembled in original ways creating a new piece of music .
When you copy words , there is no such thing like mixing beats and samples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is her claim to legitimacy compromised by the fact that she only admitted it after it was discovered by someone else?Definitely yes.
In the case of electronic music, it is obvious right from the beginning that samples are samples.
The creativity resides in the fact that those are assembled in original ways creating a new piece of music.
When you copy words, there is no such thing like mixing beats and samples.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121102</id>
	<title>Re:Generating sales for the plagiarized book</title>
	<author>xigxag</author>
	<datestamp>1265975340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's like saying that if a thug violently raped a woman, and impregnated her, and then their offspring grew up to be a great author, that it sorta makes rape ok.</p><p>Anyway, what I find surprising about this story is that Axolotl Roadkill's publisher's have continued to print/distribute the book after knowing that it violates copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like saying that if a thug violently raped a woman , and impregnated her , and then their offspring grew up to be a great author , that it sorta makes rape ok.Anyway , what I find surprising about this story is that Axolotl Roadkill 's publisher 's have continued to print/distribute the book after knowing that it violates copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like saying that if a thug violently raped a woman, and impregnated her, and then their offspring grew up to be a great author, that it sorta makes rape ok.Anyway, what I find surprising about this story is that Axolotl Roadkill's publisher's have continued to print/distribute the book after knowing that it violates copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124542</id>
	<title>More importantly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265998500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who is only slightly older than she is: Yes, this is plagiarism - in fact, it may be even worse if you think about it. Copyright infringement is what matters in the real world, and is orthogonal to plagarism. For example, it is not actually plagiarism to publish somebody else's work in its entirety as the majority of a new work, as long as the original author is credited. People are never required to do what's best with what they own. They're free to be as stupid, generous, savvy, greedy, or unreasonable as they wish, within the confines of the law. Aside from that, the sky is the limit as well as the color of a television tuned to a dead channel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who is only slightly older than she is : Yes , this is plagiarism - in fact , it may be even worse if you think about it .
Copyright infringement is what matters in the real world , and is orthogonal to plagarism .
For example , it is not actually plagiarism to publish somebody else 's work in its entirety as the majority of a new work , as long as the original author is credited .
People are never required to do what 's best with what they own .
They 're free to be as stupid , generous , savvy , greedy , or unreasonable as they wish , within the confines of the law .
Aside from that , the sky is the limit as well as the color of a television tuned to a dead channel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who is only slightly older than she is: Yes, this is plagiarism - in fact, it may be even worse if you think about it.
Copyright infringement is what matters in the real world, and is orthogonal to plagarism.
For example, it is not actually plagiarism to publish somebody else's work in its entirety as the majority of a new work, as long as the original author is credited.
People are never required to do what's best with what they own.
They're free to be as stupid, generous, savvy, greedy, or unreasonable as they wish, within the confines of the law.
Aside from that, the sky is the limit as well as the color of a television tuned to a dead channel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122456</id>
	<title>Of course it is legitimate...</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1265981460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meanwhile, I'm announcing my new play:</p><p>Romeo and My Beyotch, Juliet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , I 'm announcing my new play : Romeo and My Beyotch , Juliet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, I'm announcing my new play:Romeo and My Beyotch, Juliet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122442</id>
	<title>yeah...</title>
	<author>foqn1bo</author>
	<datestamp>1265981400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
It's true that there is an entrenched culture of sampling in music, typically without explicit attribution.  Even if the artist in question pays for the right to use a particular sample, credit is rarely given in an obvious fashion, if at all.  When I was a younger lad, I remember the disappointment I felt when I learned that the sick-ass grooves I was listening to on the radio were mostly lifted wholesale from soul records, Ice Cube, Puffy (well, I guess I never really liked his music, but he was one of the worst offenders), etc.  It wasn't that I was mad they had sampled it, I just felt like a tool having assumed they had come up with the groove themselves, and found myself far less impressed by the music, which was usually my favorite part of a lot of the classic '90s hip hop.<br> <br>

Sure, sampling in music has been going on a long time, and yeah yeah kids these days and their mashups, yadda yadda.  I even do a fair amount of it myself, as an electronic musician, and I try to get creative with the ways that I use my sample material.  But I think that this sort of corner of sampling, where you just take a loop from an Al Green track and play it over a breakbeat and you're done, is as close to plagiarism as it gets, ignoring the fact that most of these producers probably got legal permission one way or another.  If this author wants to pull the whole "we live in a digital culture now" thing, that's fine, but there's no reason why she couldn't have listed the sources she plundered in an appendix, and made public the fact that she was trying something innovative by applying the wisdom of the new generation, or whatever.  I'd even hail her initiative.  As it stands, it seems pretty clear that she just wanted to pass other people's words off as her own, got caught, and made up a bullshit excuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true that there is an entrenched culture of sampling in music , typically without explicit attribution .
Even if the artist in question pays for the right to use a particular sample , credit is rarely given in an obvious fashion , if at all .
When I was a younger lad , I remember the disappointment I felt when I learned that the sick-ass grooves I was listening to on the radio were mostly lifted wholesale from soul records , Ice Cube , Puffy ( well , I guess I never really liked his music , but he was one of the worst offenders ) , etc .
It was n't that I was mad they had sampled it , I just felt like a tool having assumed they had come up with the groove themselves , and found myself far less impressed by the music , which was usually my favorite part of a lot of the classic '90s hip hop .
Sure , sampling in music has been going on a long time , and yeah yeah kids these days and their mashups , yadda yadda .
I even do a fair amount of it myself , as an electronic musician , and I try to get creative with the ways that I use my sample material .
But I think that this sort of corner of sampling , where you just take a loop from an Al Green track and play it over a breakbeat and you 're done , is as close to plagiarism as it gets , ignoring the fact that most of these producers probably got legal permission one way or another .
If this author wants to pull the whole " we live in a digital culture now " thing , that 's fine , but there 's no reason why she could n't have listed the sources she plundered in an appendix , and made public the fact that she was trying something innovative by applying the wisdom of the new generation , or whatever .
I 'd even hail her initiative .
As it stands , it seems pretty clear that she just wanted to pass other people 's words off as her own , got caught , and made up a bullshit excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's true that there is an entrenched culture of sampling in music, typically without explicit attribution.
Even if the artist in question pays for the right to use a particular sample, credit is rarely given in an obvious fashion, if at all.
When I was a younger lad, I remember the disappointment I felt when I learned that the sick-ass grooves I was listening to on the radio were mostly lifted wholesale from soul records, Ice Cube, Puffy (well, I guess I never really liked his music, but he was one of the worst offenders), etc.
It wasn't that I was mad they had sampled it, I just felt like a tool having assumed they had come up with the groove themselves, and found myself far less impressed by the music, which was usually my favorite part of a lot of the classic '90s hip hop.
Sure, sampling in music has been going on a long time, and yeah yeah kids these days and their mashups, yadda yadda.
I even do a fair amount of it myself, as an electronic musician, and I try to get creative with the ways that I use my sample material.
But I think that this sort of corner of sampling, where you just take a loop from an Al Green track and play it over a breakbeat and you're done, is as close to plagiarism as it gets, ignoring the fact that most of these producers probably got legal permission one way or another.
If this author wants to pull the whole "we live in a digital culture now" thing, that's fine, but there's no reason why she couldn't have listed the sources she plundered in an appendix, and made public the fact that she was trying something innovative by applying the wisdom of the new generation, or whatever.
I'd even hail her initiative.
As it stands, it seems pretty clear that she just wanted to pass other people's words off as her own, got caught, and made up a bullshit excuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120878</id>
	<title>Re:Whee</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1265974620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But when you take people like Kid Rock for example, and listen to him outright take someone else's music -- with hardly a single change -- and then add lyrics of his own, that is not Fair Use, that is plagiarism</i></p><p>Weird Al does it better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But when you take people like Kid Rock for example , and listen to him outright take someone else 's music -- with hardly a single change -- and then add lyrics of his own , that is not Fair Use , that is plagiarismWeird Al does it better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But when you take people like Kid Rock for example, and listen to him outright take someone else's music -- with hardly a single change -- and then add lyrics of his own, that is not Fair Use, that is plagiarismWeird Al does it better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120452</id>
	<title>crazy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine how crazy the world would be if you couldn't copy ideas... Oh wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine how crazy the world would be if you could n't copy ideas... Oh wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine how crazy the world would be if you couldn't copy ideas... Oh wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120398</id>
	<title>Not right ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But not entirely wrong either. I don't know where the limit is, but I was taught that it was five consequent words, which is ridiculous really, especially today when everyone is writing stuff up and the worst cases are building huge databases against which to check new works.</p><p>I doubt none of my works/assignments would have passed the five word rule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But not entirely wrong either .
I do n't know where the limit is , but I was taught that it was five consequent words , which is ridiculous really , especially today when everyone is writing stuff up and the worst cases are building huge databases against which to check new works.I doubt none of my works/assignments would have passed the five word rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But not entirely wrong either.
I don't know where the limit is, but I was taught that it was five consequent words, which is ridiculous really, especially today when everyone is writing stuff up and the worst cases are building huge databases against which to check new works.I doubt none of my works/assignments would have passed the five word rule.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125080</id>
	<title>Is society stagnating?</title>
	<author>jsimon12</author>
	<datestamp>1266091860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most if not arguably all the movies in the last few years are either remakes or rehashes, many artists rehash or sample others music and now society has started tolerating plagiarists. Is society stagnating?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most if not arguably all the movies in the last few years are either remakes or rehashes , many artists rehash or sample others music and now society has started tolerating plagiarists .
Is society stagnating ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most if not arguably all the movies in the last few years are either remakes or rehashes, many artists rehash or sample others music and now society has started tolerating plagiarists.
Is society stagnating?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121046</id>
	<title>Re:Plagiarism and copyright violation</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ish</author>
	<datestamp>1265975160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fully concur with JoshuaZ. If this happened in one of my classes, they would get an automatic F in the class, assuming they confessed when challenged. Any fancy footwork like she is trying to pull and I would try and get her expelled.<br><br>As for the question about why words might be different from music, I am surprised that this question even arises. We have all these niffty things like quotation marks and citation conventions (APA, MLA, etc.), which make it possible to easily indicate when words are not original. To the best of my knowledge, no such conventions and tool exist in the case of music.<br><br>I really hope that the people who had their words stolen call their lawyers. It would give the lawyers something useful to do, rather than helping out the greedy fools of the RIAA, MIAA and associated creeps.<br><br>Self-righteous 'explanations' after the fact are very common among plagiarists and cheats. So, her putative 'defense' should be held up as an object of ridicule. She should also have her works pulped, forthwith. I find this whole affair "...fills me with the urge to deficate." (Waters, Ezrin, 1982)<br><br>References:<br>Waters, R. and Ezrin, R. (1982), "The Trial" in Pink Floyd, *The Wall*, Columbia Records.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully concur with JoshuaZ .
If this happened in one of my classes , they would get an automatic F in the class , assuming they confessed when challenged .
Any fancy footwork like she is trying to pull and I would try and get her expelled.As for the question about why words might be different from music , I am surprised that this question even arises .
We have all these niffty things like quotation marks and citation conventions ( APA , MLA , etc .
) , which make it possible to easily indicate when words are not original .
To the best of my knowledge , no such conventions and tool exist in the case of music.I really hope that the people who had their words stolen call their lawyers .
It would give the lawyers something useful to do , rather than helping out the greedy fools of the RIAA , MIAA and associated creeps.Self-righteous 'explanations ' after the fact are very common among plagiarists and cheats .
So , her putative 'defense ' should be held up as an object of ridicule .
She should also have her works pulped , forthwith .
I find this whole affair " ...fills me with the urge to deficate .
" ( Waters , Ezrin , 1982 ) References : Waters , R. and Ezrin , R. ( 1982 ) , " The Trial " in Pink Floyd , * The Wall * , Columbia Records .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fully concur with JoshuaZ.
If this happened in one of my classes, they would get an automatic F in the class, assuming they confessed when challenged.
Any fancy footwork like she is trying to pull and I would try and get her expelled.As for the question about why words might be different from music, I am surprised that this question even arises.
We have all these niffty things like quotation marks and citation conventions (APA, MLA, etc.
), which make it possible to easily indicate when words are not original.
To the best of my knowledge, no such conventions and tool exist in the case of music.I really hope that the people who had their words stolen call their lawyers.
It would give the lawyers something useful to do, rather than helping out the greedy fools of the RIAA, MIAA and associated creeps.Self-righteous 'explanations' after the fact are very common among plagiarists and cheats.
So, her putative 'defense' should be held up as an object of ridicule.
She should also have her works pulped, forthwith.
I find this whole affair "...fills me with the urge to deficate.
" (Waters, Ezrin, 1982)References:Waters, R. and Ezrin, R. (1982), "The Trial" in Pink Floyd, *The Wall*, Columbia Records.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120988</id>
	<title>Limitations of the medium</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265974980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not always practicable to include full attribution. When a song that uses a sample under license is played on the radio, the DJ doesn't list all the samples.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not always practicable to include full attribution .
When a song that uses a sample under license is played on the radio , the DJ does n't list all the samples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not always practicable to include full attribution.
When a song that uses a sample under license is played on the radio, the DJ doesn't list all the samples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31130822</id>
	<title>The title</title>
	<author>Squiffy</author>
	<datestamp>1266063360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the title of the book might be "Fucking and Punching" but I guess not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the title of the book might be " Fucking and Punching " but I guess not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the title of the book might be "Fucking and Punching" but I guess not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120712</id>
	<title>It's a matter of degree</title>
	<author>l2718</author>
	<datestamp>1265974080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Art has always built on ideas and elements from the work of previous artists.  Mozart's first four piano concertos are arrangements of piano solo movements written by other composers.  Liszt arranged Beethoven's symphonies for piano solo and two pianos.  Most of Shakespeare's plots and characters are not original.  Rachmaninov wrote a famous "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini".  Beethoven's "Wellington" Symphony incorporates "God save the King".  The cover art to Terry Pratchett's book "Night Watch" adapts Rembrandt's famous painting.  Card's "Alvin Gentry" series retells the story of the Book of Mormon.</p><p>The question has always been one of degree and certainly has been culturally dependent.  What was acceptable for Mozart (republishing work by others as his own) wasn't acceptable for Liszt (his piano arrangements were published as such, not as entirely original pieces).  Was is acceptable for Disney (adapting Stevenson's book "Treasure Island" to a live-action film) isn't acceptable for you and me (adapting Disney's "Toy Story" into a book).</p><p>With regard to the case at hand, you'd have to see <i>how much</i> of the work is adapted, and whether this kind of adaptation is normal for the relevant genre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Art has always built on ideas and elements from the work of previous artists .
Mozart 's first four piano concertos are arrangements of piano solo movements written by other composers .
Liszt arranged Beethoven 's symphonies for piano solo and two pianos .
Most of Shakespeare 's plots and characters are not original .
Rachmaninov wrote a famous " Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini " .
Beethoven 's " Wellington " Symphony incorporates " God save the King " .
The cover art to Terry Pratchett 's book " Night Watch " adapts Rembrandt 's famous painting .
Card 's " Alvin Gentry " series retells the story of the Book of Mormon.The question has always been one of degree and certainly has been culturally dependent .
What was acceptable for Mozart ( republishing work by others as his own ) was n't acceptable for Liszt ( his piano arrangements were published as such , not as entirely original pieces ) .
Was is acceptable for Disney ( adapting Stevenson 's book " Treasure Island " to a live-action film ) is n't acceptable for you and me ( adapting Disney 's " Toy Story " into a book ) .With regard to the case at hand , you 'd have to see how much of the work is adapted , and whether this kind of adaptation is normal for the relevant genre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Art has always built on ideas and elements from the work of previous artists.
Mozart's first four piano concertos are arrangements of piano solo movements written by other composers.
Liszt arranged Beethoven's symphonies for piano solo and two pianos.
Most of Shakespeare's plots and characters are not original.
Rachmaninov wrote a famous "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini".
Beethoven's "Wellington" Symphony incorporates "God save the King".
The cover art to Terry Pratchett's book "Night Watch" adapts Rembrandt's famous painting.
Card's "Alvin Gentry" series retells the story of the Book of Mormon.The question has always been one of degree and certainly has been culturally dependent.
What was acceptable for Mozart (republishing work by others as his own) wasn't acceptable for Liszt (his piano arrangements were published as such, not as entirely original pieces).
Was is acceptable for Disney (adapting Stevenson's book "Treasure Island" to a live-action film) isn't acceptable for you and me (adapting Disney's "Toy Story" into a book).With regard to the case at hand, you'd have to see how much of the work is adapted, and whether this kind of adaptation is normal for the relevant genre.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120804</id>
	<title>Re:It's sad that some people think this is okay</title>
	<author>SkunkPussy</author>
	<datestamp>1265974380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you also say that if you are building a house, you should construct all the bricks yourself - otherwise you're a poor and unskilled builder?</p><p>If you are a writer, should you invent all the words yourself, otherwise you're a weak writer?</p><p>There are entire genres of music that have sprung up based upon sampling the drum beat out of ONE SONG from 40 years ago (c.f. Amen Break).</p><p>Isaac Newton is said to have made a comment about how he only achieved what he achieved by standing on the shoulders of giants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you also say that if you are building a house , you should construct all the bricks yourself - otherwise you 're a poor and unskilled builder ? If you are a writer , should you invent all the words yourself , otherwise you 're a weak writer ? There are entire genres of music that have sprung up based upon sampling the drum beat out of ONE SONG from 40 years ago ( c.f .
Amen Break ) .Isaac Newton is said to have made a comment about how he only achieved what he achieved by standing on the shoulders of giants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you also say that if you are building a house, you should construct all the bricks yourself - otherwise you're a poor and unskilled builder?If you are a writer, should you invent all the words yourself, otherwise you're a weak writer?There are entire genres of music that have sprung up based upon sampling the drum beat out of ONE SONG from 40 years ago (c.f.
Amen Break).Isaac Newton is said to have made a comment about how he only achieved what he achieved by standing on the shoulders of giants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123308</id>
	<title>Copyright shouldn't chill expression</title>
	<author>moogaloonie</author>
	<datestamp>1265986500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the point is whether or not a distinctly new work is created by the use of the previously created material.  I disagree with the Verve outcome because the song uses an excerpt from "The Last Time" recording to a create a new work that any reasonable person would never mistake for being by The Rolling Stones.  When Disney lost their copyright defense against "The Air Pirates" it was because despite visual similarities, their were too many differences between them for one to be mistaken for the other.  No one could read a Disney comic and think it was The Air Pirates.

If Helene Hegemann were a student and plagiarized another person's work to save herself the effort, or to demonstrate a false knowledge of the material, that would obviously be wrong.  However, it seems that she created a new work with a legitimate right to exist in its own right, as determined by both sales and acclaim.  Many songs which use samples are also unique works, as any fan of Hip-Hop or Beck or the Beastie Boys would tell you.  Requiring permission to use an excerpt or sample runs the risk of denying the rest of us the resultant work, should permission be denied or be prohibitively expensive.  I personally quite like DJ Dangermouse's "The Grey Album", and could never mistake it for The Beatles or Jay-Z, but yet it is an illegal work nonetheless.  I think the Hip-Hop genre as a whole was much better before samples had to be cleared.

If a work is entirely plagiarized, it would likely prove redundant (such as with a plagiarized term paper on a generic topic) and be forgotten anyway.  Her book doesn't seem to fall into this category.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the point is whether or not a distinctly new work is created by the use of the previously created material .
I disagree with the Verve outcome because the song uses an excerpt from " The Last Time " recording to a create a new work that any reasonable person would never mistake for being by The Rolling Stones .
When Disney lost their copyright defense against " The Air Pirates " it was because despite visual similarities , their were too many differences between them for one to be mistaken for the other .
No one could read a Disney comic and think it was The Air Pirates .
If Helene Hegemann were a student and plagiarized another person 's work to save herself the effort , or to demonstrate a false knowledge of the material , that would obviously be wrong .
However , it seems that she created a new work with a legitimate right to exist in its own right , as determined by both sales and acclaim .
Many songs which use samples are also unique works , as any fan of Hip-Hop or Beck or the Beastie Boys would tell you .
Requiring permission to use an excerpt or sample runs the risk of denying the rest of us the resultant work , should permission be denied or be prohibitively expensive .
I personally quite like DJ Dangermouse 's " The Grey Album " , and could never mistake it for The Beatles or Jay-Z , but yet it is an illegal work nonetheless .
I think the Hip-Hop genre as a whole was much better before samples had to be cleared .
If a work is entirely plagiarized , it would likely prove redundant ( such as with a plagiarized term paper on a generic topic ) and be forgotten anyway .
Her book does n't seem to fall into this category .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the point is whether or not a distinctly new work is created by the use of the previously created material.
I disagree with the Verve outcome because the song uses an excerpt from "The Last Time" recording to a create a new work that any reasonable person would never mistake for being by The Rolling Stones.
When Disney lost their copyright defense against "The Air Pirates" it was because despite visual similarities, their were too many differences between them for one to be mistaken for the other.
No one could read a Disney comic and think it was The Air Pirates.
If Helene Hegemann were a student and plagiarized another person's work to save herself the effort, or to demonstrate a false knowledge of the material, that would obviously be wrong.
However, it seems that she created a new work with a legitimate right to exist in its own right, as determined by both sales and acclaim.
Many songs which use samples are also unique works, as any fan of Hip-Hop or Beck or the Beastie Boys would tell you.
Requiring permission to use an excerpt or sample runs the risk of denying the rest of us the resultant work, should permission be denied or be prohibitively expensive.
I personally quite like DJ Dangermouse's "The Grey Album", and could never mistake it for The Beatles or Jay-Z, but yet it is an illegal work nonetheless.
I think the Hip-Hop genre as a whole was much better before samples had to be cleared.
If a work is entirely plagiarized, it would likely prove redundant (such as with a plagiarized term paper on a generic topic) and be forgotten anyway.
Her book doesn't seem to fall into this category.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120486</id>
	<title>From the article...</title>
	<author>GPLDAN</author>
	<datestamp>1265973300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Deef Pirmasens, the blogger who discovered the passages taken from &ldquo;Strobo,&rdquo; said that he could understand a few words or phrases seeping into the work through inspiration, but that he quickly noticed that there were too many for it to be a coincidence. &ldquo;To take an entire page from an author, as Helene Hegemann admitted to doing, with only slight changes and without asking the author, I consider that illegitimate,&rdquo; Mr. Pirmasens said.</i> <br> <br> <br>

Entire pages verbatim? She is the Vanilla Ice of literature sampling then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Deef Pirmasens , the blogger who discovered the passages taken from    Strobo ,    said that he could understand a few words or phrases seeping into the work through inspiration , but that he quickly noticed that there were too many for it to be a coincidence .
   To take an entire page from an author , as Helene Hegemann admitted to doing , with only slight changes and without asking the author , I consider that illegitimate ,    Mr. Pirmasens said .
Entire pages verbatim ?
She is the Vanilla Ice of literature sampling then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deef Pirmasens, the blogger who discovered the passages taken from “Strobo,” said that he could understand a few words or phrases seeping into the work through inspiration, but that he quickly noticed that there were too many for it to be a coincidence.
“To take an entire page from an author, as Helene Hegemann admitted to doing, with only slight changes and without asking the author, I consider that illegitimate,” Mr. Pirmasens said.
Entire pages verbatim?
She is the Vanilla Ice of literature sampling then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121636</id>
	<title>Stop ... my work!</title>
	<author>poena.dare</author>
	<datestamp>1265977800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Stop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... my work. I<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... remixes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... thieves!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey ... Stop ... my work .
I ... remixes ... thieves !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey ... Stop ... my work.
I ... remixes ... thieves!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120142</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>pwnies</author>
	<datestamp>1265972220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference between bands like Girl Talk who sample music to create new pieces, and someone copying someone else's words into a paper they're writing, is that <em>Girl Talk doesn't claim to have made the samples</em>. One of the aspects of why plagiarism is seen as wrong is because you're taking credit for someone else's work. When you're sampling music, you're crediting them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between bands like Girl Talk who sample music to create new pieces , and someone copying someone else 's words into a paper they 're writing , is that Girl Talk does n't claim to have made the samples .
One of the aspects of why plagiarism is seen as wrong is because you 're taking credit for someone else 's work .
When you 're sampling music , you 're crediting them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between bands like Girl Talk who sample music to create new pieces, and someone copying someone else's words into a paper they're writing, is that Girl Talk doesn't claim to have made the samples.
One of the aspects of why plagiarism is seen as wrong is because you're taking credit for someone else's work.
When you're sampling music, you're crediting them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121156</id>
	<title>Re:Whee</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265975520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is only plagiarism if he misrepresents the source of the work.</p><p>And, for instance, Rolling Stone doesn't seem to be real reluctant to 'call him on it':</p><p><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/16700035/review/16720051/rockandrolljesus" title="rollingstone.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/16700035/review/16720051/rockandrolljesus</a> [rollingstone.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is only plagiarism if he misrepresents the source of the work.And , for instance , Rolling Stone does n't seem to be real reluctant to 'call him on it ' : http : //www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/16700035/review/16720051/rockandrolljesus [ rollingstone.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is only plagiarism if he misrepresents the source of the work.And, for instance, Rolling Stone doesn't seem to be real reluctant to 'call him on it':http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/16700035/review/16720051/rockandrolljesus [rollingstone.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120630</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1265973720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is still a limit as to how far sampling can go, and I have experienced quite a few instances of "sampling" that were very clearly over the legal line.
<br> <br>
Even if 100 artists agree with you, I have no doubt whatever that I could find, with little effort, 1,000 who do not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is still a limit as to how far sampling can go , and I have experienced quite a few instances of " sampling " that were very clearly over the legal line .
Even if 100 artists agree with you , I have no doubt whatever that I could find , with little effort , 1,000 who do not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is still a limit as to how far sampling can go, and I have experienced quite a few instances of "sampling" that were very clearly over the legal line.
Even if 100 artists agree with you, I have no doubt whatever that I could find, with little effort, 1,000 who do not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124204</id>
	<title>it's not "plagiarism"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plagiarism is an academic concept, not an artistic one.  Reuse of previous art in new art pieces has a very long history, in all forms of art: music, theater, painting, literature, dance, etc.  There used to be nothing wrong with it, it didn't even need to be acknowledged.</p><p>Misapplying the concept of plagiarism to art probably has two sources: (1) academics who over-analyze art, and (2) greedy copyright holders who want to be able to make money off of even the slightest hint of reuse of their content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plagiarism is an academic concept , not an artistic one .
Reuse of previous art in new art pieces has a very long history , in all forms of art : music , theater , painting , literature , dance , etc .
There used to be nothing wrong with it , it did n't even need to be acknowledged.Misapplying the concept of plagiarism to art probably has two sources : ( 1 ) academics who over-analyze art , and ( 2 ) greedy copyright holders who want to be able to make money off of even the slightest hint of reuse of their content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plagiarism is an academic concept, not an artistic one.
Reuse of previous art in new art pieces has a very long history, in all forms of art: music, theater, painting, literature, dance, etc.
There used to be nothing wrong with it, it didn't even need to be acknowledged.Misapplying the concept of plagiarism to art probably has two sources: (1) academics who over-analyze art, and (2) greedy copyright holders who want to be able to make money off of even the slightest hint of reuse of their content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120890</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts on this</title>
	<author>Digero</author>
	<datestamp>1265974620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow!  Very eloquent, Quiet\_Desperation.  You should be an author.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
Very eloquent , Quiet \ _Desperation .
You should be an author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
Very eloquent, Quiet\_Desperation.
You should be an author.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121108</id>
	<title>Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal</title>
	<author>TwiztidK</author>
	<datestamp>1265975340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In every Humanities class I've ever been, the teachers always try to convey that humans just continually rehash ideas that other people thought up. That people use others ideas to such an extent that almost everything we do is a derivative work. The reuse of ideas, or even small sentences or clips of music, to come up with new works has come to be known as "Fair Use".<br> <br>
I've never read the book in question or any of the books that were "sampled" into it, so it would be idiotic for me to comment as to whether it's Fair Use or not. If she used passages from many books and she included quite a bit of her own writing, then there is nothing wrong with her book. In fact, if her story was original enough there would be no reason for her to even cite the authors she borrowed from.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In every Humanities class I 've ever been , the teachers always try to convey that humans just continually rehash ideas that other people thought up .
That people use others ideas to such an extent that almost everything we do is a derivative work .
The reuse of ideas , or even small sentences or clips of music , to come up with new works has come to be known as " Fair Use " .
I 've never read the book in question or any of the books that were " sampled " into it , so it would be idiotic for me to comment as to whether it 's Fair Use or not .
If she used passages from many books and she included quite a bit of her own writing , then there is nothing wrong with her book .
In fact , if her story was original enough there would be no reason for her to even cite the authors she borrowed from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In every Humanities class I've ever been, the teachers always try to convey that humans just continually rehash ideas that other people thought up.
That people use others ideas to such an extent that almost everything we do is a derivative work.
The reuse of ideas, or even small sentences or clips of music, to come up with new works has come to be known as "Fair Use".
I've never read the book in question or any of the books that were "sampled" into it, so it would be idiotic for me to comment as to whether it's Fair Use or not.
If she used passages from many books and she included quite a bit of her own writing, then there is nothing wrong with her book.
In fact, if her story was original enough there would be no reason for her to even cite the authors she borrowed from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31126282</id>
	<title>Re:Generating sales for the plagiarized book</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266070200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a lot wrong with your posting, but we'll get a few obvious things out of the way first.</p><p>"If you trespass, you are liable for damages should the owner wish to pursue them."</p><p>Actually, trespass [to land] in most jurisdictions (English common law) is an actionable wrong (civil tort) even *when no damage or injury takes place*. Thus one can sue a trespasser for doing no 'damage' other than having been on one's land. As well, if one wants to be lawyery, one should distinguish between trespass to land (here), trespass to person, trespass to chattles, etc.</p><p>"No form of stealing is always bad. Trespassing isn't always bad. Neither is copyright infringement. Neither is outright theft. But in each instance, you impinge on someone's inherent and exclusive rights"</p><p>So you conflate stealing, with trespass, with copyright infringement? The thing is, [expression of] ideas really aren't property but for an act of copyright. Copyright establishes a property right to expressions ideas and that property right can be easily removed by a simple act of a legislature/parliament, etc. Attempting to do the same removal of rights to land property or possessions are probably not so easily done, since of course property of objects and land is very very distinct from attempting to own expressions of ideas, etc.</p><p>"With copyright infringement, you pay for the injury, your depriving the owner of his exclusive property rights."</p><p>An act by government (especially one unrestrained by a constitution) can give me property rights to the air, water, and the labor of you and your unborn children but that doesn't necessarily make it either sensible or moral. Similarly with copyright, and if it proves to be too cumbersome perhaps it's time to have it modified, or as I mentioned: even done away with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a lot wrong with your posting , but we 'll get a few obvious things out of the way first .
" If you trespass , you are liable for damages should the owner wish to pursue them .
" Actually , trespass [ to land ] in most jurisdictions ( English common law ) is an actionable wrong ( civil tort ) even * when no damage or injury takes place * .
Thus one can sue a trespasser for doing no 'damage ' other than having been on one 's land .
As well , if one wants to be lawyery , one should distinguish between trespass to land ( here ) , trespass to person , trespass to chattles , etc .
" No form of stealing is always bad .
Trespassing is n't always bad .
Neither is copyright infringement .
Neither is outright theft .
But in each instance , you impinge on someone 's inherent and exclusive rights " So you conflate stealing , with trespass , with copyright infringement ?
The thing is , [ expression of ] ideas really are n't property but for an act of copyright .
Copyright establishes a property right to expressions ideas and that property right can be easily removed by a simple act of a legislature/parliament , etc .
Attempting to do the same removal of rights to land property or possessions are probably not so easily done , since of course property of objects and land is very very distinct from attempting to own expressions of ideas , etc .
" With copyright infringement , you pay for the injury , your depriving the owner of his exclusive property rights .
" An act by government ( especially one unrestrained by a constitution ) can give me property rights to the air , water , and the labor of you and your unborn children but that does n't necessarily make it either sensible or moral .
Similarly with copyright , and if it proves to be too cumbersome perhaps it 's time to have it modified , or as I mentioned : even done away with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a lot wrong with your posting, but we'll get a few obvious things out of the way first.
"If you trespass, you are liable for damages should the owner wish to pursue them.
"Actually, trespass [to land] in most jurisdictions (English common law) is an actionable wrong (civil tort) even *when no damage or injury takes place*.
Thus one can sue a trespasser for doing no 'damage' other than having been on one's land.
As well, if one wants to be lawyery, one should distinguish between trespass to land (here), trespass to person, trespass to chattles, etc.
"No form of stealing is always bad.
Trespassing isn't always bad.
Neither is copyright infringement.
Neither is outright theft.
But in each instance, you impinge on someone's inherent and exclusive rights"So you conflate stealing, with trespass, with copyright infringement?
The thing is, [expression of] ideas really aren't property but for an act of copyright.
Copyright establishes a property right to expressions ideas and that property right can be easily removed by a simple act of a legislature/parliament, etc.
Attempting to do the same removal of rights to land property or possessions are probably not so easily done, since of course property of objects and land is very very distinct from attempting to own expressions of ideas, etc.
"With copyright infringement, you pay for the injury, your depriving the owner of his exclusive property rights.
"An act by government (especially one unrestrained by a constitution) can give me property rights to the air, water, and the labor of you and your unborn children but that doesn't necessarily make it either sensible or moral.
Similarly with copyright, and if it proves to be too cumbersome perhaps it's time to have it modified, or as I mentioned: even done away with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252</id>
	<title>Definitely Not</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1265972580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't care if it's "a new generation". In the past, "new generations" did not claim they could rob or steal just because they feel like it, either.
<br> <br>
Not that plagiarism or copyright infringement is stealing... I know the difference and why the law treats them differently. But that was the closest thing that came to mind just now.
<br> <br>
This "new generation" needs to wise the f* up and learn the difference between Fair Use and just plain plagiarizing someone else's work. If they don't, everybody else will end up coming down on them like a ton of bricks.
<br> <br>
If they don't like the copyright laws, then get them changed to something more reasonable (something I would like to see, as well). But just pretending they don't exist is not going to work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if it 's " a new generation " .
In the past , " new generations " did not claim they could rob or steal just because they feel like it , either .
Not that plagiarism or copyright infringement is stealing... I know the difference and why the law treats them differently .
But that was the closest thing that came to mind just now .
This " new generation " needs to wise the f * up and learn the difference between Fair Use and just plain plagiarizing someone else 's work .
If they do n't , everybody else will end up coming down on them like a ton of bricks .
If they do n't like the copyright laws , then get them changed to something more reasonable ( something I would like to see , as well ) .
But just pretending they do n't exist is not going to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if it's "a new generation".
In the past, "new generations" did not claim they could rob or steal just because they feel like it, either.
Not that plagiarism or copyright infringement is stealing... I know the difference and why the law treats them differently.
But that was the closest thing that came to mind just now.
This "new generation" needs to wise the f* up and learn the difference between Fair Use and just plain plagiarizing someone else's work.
If they don't, everybody else will end up coming down on them like a ton of bricks.
If they don't like the copyright laws, then get them changed to something more reasonable (something I would like to see, as well).
But just pretending they don't exist is not going to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120342</id>
	<title>Nonsense</title>
	<author>symes</author>
	<datestamp>1265972820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>She claims that she is part of a new generation that has grown up with mixing and sampling in all media, including music and art, and this is legitimate in modern culture</p></div><p>If she said that upfront - before all this blew up... then perhaps she might have a legitimate point. But after the fact is smacks of ignorance, laziness and a protozoan intellect pretending to be great.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>She claims that she is part of a new generation that has grown up with mixing and sampling in all media , including music and art , and this is legitimate in modern cultureIf she said that upfront - before all this blew up... then perhaps she might have a legitimate point .
But after the fact is smacks of ignorance , laziness and a protozoan intellect pretending to be great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She claims that she is part of a new generation that has grown up with mixing and sampling in all media, including music and art, and this is legitimate in modern cultureIf she said that upfront - before all this blew up... then perhaps she might have a legitimate point.
But after the fact is smacks of ignorance, laziness and a protozoan intellect pretending to be great.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120932</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts on this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265974800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>chaka, when the walls fell...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>chaka , when the walls fell.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>chaka, when the walls fell...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125154</id>
	<title>Re:Is Sampling Just Weak-Kneed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266092880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>where would we be today without:<br>spear<br>needle<br>fire<br>wheel<br>lever<br>screw<br>pulley<br>seeds<br>livestock<br>symbols<br>pottery<br>etc.</p><p>What I don't understand about appropriation art and everything that's come after it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is the lack of ambition. Are people too incapable of coming up with something original?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where would we be today without : spearneedlefirewheelleverscrewpulleyseedslivestocksymbolspotteryetc.What I do n't understand about appropriation art and everything that 's come after it ... is the lack of ambition .
Are people too incapable of coming up with something original ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where would we be today without:spearneedlefirewheelleverscrewpulleyseedslivestocksymbolspotteryetc.What I don't understand about appropriation art and everything that's come after it ... is the lack of ambition.
Are people too incapable of coming up with something original?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124998</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief,</title>
	<author>quantaman</author>
	<datestamp>1266003840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla\%3Aen-US\%3Aofficial&amp;hs=FYr&amp;q=\%22When+you+have+a+planet+with+a+population+of+nearly+7+billion\%22&amp;btnG=Search&amp;meta=&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=" title="google.ca">"When you have a planet with a population of nearly 7 billion"</a> [google.ca]<br>No results found for <b>"When you have a planet with a population of nearly 7 billion".</b></p><p><a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla\%3Aen-US\%3Aofficial&amp;hs=HuW&amp;q=\%22who+claimed+that+they+developed+ideas+independently\%22&amp;btnG=Search&amp;meta=&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=" title="google.ca">"who claimed that they developed ideas independently"</a> [google.ca]</p><p>No results found for <b>"who claimed that they developed ideas independently"</b>.</p><p><a href="http://www.google.ca/search?q=\%22If+the+offense+is+blatant+copy-infringement\%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a" title="google.ca">"If the offense is blatant copy-infringement"</a> [google.ca]<br>No results found for <b>"If the offense is blatant copy-infringement"</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When you have a planet with a population of nearly 7 billion " [ google.ca ] No results found for " When you have a planet with a population of nearly 7 billion " .
" who claimed that they developed ideas independently " [ google.ca ] No results found for " who claimed that they developed ideas independently " .
" If the offense is blatant copy-infringement " [ google.ca ] No results found for " If the offense is blatant copy-infringement " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When you have a planet with a population of nearly 7 billion" [google.ca]No results found for "When you have a planet with a population of nearly 7 billion".
"who claimed that they developed ideas independently" [google.ca]No results found for "who claimed that they developed ideas independently".
"If the offense is blatant copy-infringement" [google.ca]No results found for "If the offense is blatant copy-infringement".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121092</id>
	<title>Re:Works Cited</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265975280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it's not there, you plagiarized.</p></div><p>That's not necessarily the case. Sometimes something is original enough that it doesn't need them. While this is rarely true in the humanities, it is more likely to be true in the sciences although still very rare. But it isn't at all rare for minor math papers to not have any sources if they don't work off of anything pre-existing that was that major. Something like "Here's an intrinsically interesting problem we thought of. The problem is naturally interesting because of XYZ. Here's what we did with it." No works cited and no plagiarism involved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's not there , you plagiarized.That 's not necessarily the case .
Sometimes something is original enough that it does n't need them .
While this is rarely true in the humanities , it is more likely to be true in the sciences although still very rare .
But it is n't at all rare for minor math papers to not have any sources if they do n't work off of anything pre-existing that was that major .
Something like " Here 's an intrinsically interesting problem we thought of .
The problem is naturally interesting because of XYZ .
Here 's what we did with it .
" No works cited and no plagiarism involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's not there, you plagiarized.That's not necessarily the case.
Sometimes something is original enough that it doesn't need them.
While this is rarely true in the humanities, it is more likely to be true in the sciences although still very rare.
But it isn't at all rare for minor math papers to not have any sources if they don't work off of anything pre-existing that was that major.
Something like "Here's an intrinsically interesting problem we thought of.
The problem is naturally interesting because of XYZ.
Here's what we did with it.
" No works cited and no plagiarism involved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120856</id>
	<title>Re:Plagiarism and copyright violation</title>
	<author>VoiceInTheDesert</author>
	<datestamp>1265974560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. If you get thrown out of college for it, it's probably not legit.
<br>
<br>
Sampling acknowledges the original author. In music, it can be using a riff in the background of your song with a nod in the credits of your album. In literature, it's called "citing your source." If you don't cite, it's plaigarism. Furthermore, this is fiction, not a research paper where citing would be needed. We already have a catagory for writers who "sample" fiction from other sources, it's called "fan fiction," and no one gets paid for it because if they did, it would be copyright infringement.
<br>
<br>
This makes me really angry because it's just the kind of disrepect that my generation seems to be inidated with towards anyone but their own interests. You do NOT steal people's work and pass it off as your own. What a lazy bitch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
If you get thrown out of college for it , it 's probably not legit .
Sampling acknowledges the original author .
In music , it can be using a riff in the background of your song with a nod in the credits of your album .
In literature , it 's called " citing your source .
" If you do n't cite , it 's plaigarism .
Furthermore , this is fiction , not a research paper where citing would be needed .
We already have a catagory for writers who " sample " fiction from other sources , it 's called " fan fiction , " and no one gets paid for it because if they did , it would be copyright infringement .
This makes me really angry because it 's just the kind of disrepect that my generation seems to be inidated with towards anyone but their own interests .
You do NOT steal people 's work and pass it off as your own .
What a lazy bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
If you get thrown out of college for it, it's probably not legit.
Sampling acknowledges the original author.
In music, it can be using a riff in the background of your song with a nod in the credits of your album.
In literature, it's called "citing your source.
" If you don't cite, it's plaigarism.
Furthermore, this is fiction, not a research paper where citing would be needed.
We already have a catagory for writers who "sample" fiction from other sources, it's called "fan fiction," and no one gets paid for it because if they did, it would be copyright infringement.
This makes me really angry because it's just the kind of disrepect that my generation seems to be inidated with towards anyone but their own interests.
You do NOT steal people's work and pass it off as your own.
What a lazy bitch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120852</id>
	<title>Re:Stop "sampling" my work!</title>
	<author>qqqlo</author>
	<datestamp>1265974500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What, like <a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/hayne-speech.html" title="dartmouth.edu" rel="nofollow">these</a> [dartmouth.edu]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , like these [ dartmouth.edu ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, like these [dartmouth.edu]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121914</id>
	<title>Re:Did She Create Something New?</title>
	<author>McSnarf</author>
	<datestamp>1265979000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'll use Google translate to translate one of the samples here:</p><p><a href="http://www.gefuehlskonserve.de/axolotl-roadkill-alles-nur-geklaut-05022010.html" title="gefuehlskonserve.de">http://www.gefuehlskonserve.de/axolotl-roadkill-alles-nur-geklaut-05022010.html</a> [gefuehlskonserve.de]</p><p>Axolotl Roadkill, page 23:</p><p>"I have a fever, problems with coordinationn, [one part per 1000] in the overheated blood<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Strobe, page 106:</p><p>"I have a degree fever, and barely [one part per 1000] alcohol in the overheated blood."</p><p>By the way - she copied from more than one source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll use Google translate to translate one of the samples here : http : //www.gefuehlskonserve.de/axolotl-roadkill-alles-nur-geklaut-05022010.html [ gefuehlskonserve.de ] Axolotl Roadkill , page 23 : " I have a fever , problems with coordinationn , [ one part per 1000 ] in the overheated blood ... " Strobe , page 106 : " I have a degree fever , and barely [ one part per 1000 ] alcohol in the overheated blood .
" By the way - she copied from more than one source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll use Google translate to translate one of the samples here:http://www.gefuehlskonserve.de/axolotl-roadkill-alles-nur-geklaut-05022010.html [gefuehlskonserve.de]Axolotl Roadkill, page 23:"I have a fever, problems with coordinationn, [one part per 1000] in the overheated blood ..."Strobe, page 106:"I have a degree fever, and barely [one part per 1000] alcohol in the overheated blood.
"By the way - she copied from more than one source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31129996</id>
	<title>Yes to plagiarism</title>
	<author>Murdoch5</author>
	<datestamp>1266056400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I`m all for this, if you can quote someone`s words then you can quote what they write.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ` m all for this , if you can quote someone ` s words then you can quote what they write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I`m all for this, if you can quote someone`s words then you can quote what they write.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121688</id>
	<title>Re:Childish</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1265977980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Artists who sample should always give the original artist credit... This is a childish attempt to explain, or rather justify, a wrong AFTER the fact.</p></div><p>What about paraphrasing? A hobby of mine is collecting quotes. I paraphrase some of those quotes from time to time in my personal correspondence. See, the problem here is where do we draw the line? We have intellectual property on one end saying it's wrong to plagarize <i>ideas</i>, let alone what is manifest from them. On the other you have scientists, researchers, programmers, etc., that benefit enormously from the free exchange of their work. And old saying; "Stealing from one is plagarism, stealing from many is research."</p><p>It IS a childish attempt to justify what was done. But that doesn't mean the point is invalid. My generation <i>doesn't</i> respect artificial boundaries imposed by intellectual property. And I can point the finger firmly at RIAA's overly-aggressive enforcement tactics as the de facto reason for that. We live in a world super-saturated in information, and we have a strong innate desire to share that information. We post details of our innermost thoughts and daily activities online where our friends, family, coworkers, even random strangers, can see. Do you really think that if we value our own privacy so little we're going to respect the access barriers imposed by faceless corporations and over-zealous government officials?</p><p>We are seeing tectonic plates smashing together here -- intellectual property versus my generation's seemingly insatiable appetite for self-disclosure and publication. It's a mess of international law, court judgements, congressional hearings, and everything else. But eventually, intellectual property will die. It will do so at glacial speed, but it will die, because fundamentally the benefits to society being able to freely access and exchange information massively outweigh the benefits from ceding control to interested parties. That isn't to say in some select cases the practice won't continue... But the list of reasons will grow shorter, and the laws that gave the institution a form and purpose will melt away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Artists who sample should always give the original artist credit... This is a childish attempt to explain , or rather justify , a wrong AFTER the fact.What about paraphrasing ?
A hobby of mine is collecting quotes .
I paraphrase some of those quotes from time to time in my personal correspondence .
See , the problem here is where do we draw the line ?
We have intellectual property on one end saying it 's wrong to plagarize ideas , let alone what is manifest from them .
On the other you have scientists , researchers , programmers , etc. , that benefit enormously from the free exchange of their work .
And old saying ; " Stealing from one is plagarism , stealing from many is research .
" It IS a childish attempt to justify what was done .
But that does n't mean the point is invalid .
My generation does n't respect artificial boundaries imposed by intellectual property .
And I can point the finger firmly at RIAA 's overly-aggressive enforcement tactics as the de facto reason for that .
We live in a world super-saturated in information , and we have a strong innate desire to share that information .
We post details of our innermost thoughts and daily activities online where our friends , family , coworkers , even random strangers , can see .
Do you really think that if we value our own privacy so little we 're going to respect the access barriers imposed by faceless corporations and over-zealous government officials ? We are seeing tectonic plates smashing together here -- intellectual property versus my generation 's seemingly insatiable appetite for self-disclosure and publication .
It 's a mess of international law , court judgements , congressional hearings , and everything else .
But eventually , intellectual property will die .
It will do so at glacial speed , but it will die , because fundamentally the benefits to society being able to freely access and exchange information massively outweigh the benefits from ceding control to interested parties .
That is n't to say in some select cases the practice wo n't continue... But the list of reasons will grow shorter , and the laws that gave the institution a form and purpose will melt away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artists who sample should always give the original artist credit... This is a childish attempt to explain, or rather justify, a wrong AFTER the fact.What about paraphrasing?
A hobby of mine is collecting quotes.
I paraphrase some of those quotes from time to time in my personal correspondence.
See, the problem here is where do we draw the line?
We have intellectual property on one end saying it's wrong to plagarize ideas, let alone what is manifest from them.
On the other you have scientists, researchers, programmers, etc., that benefit enormously from the free exchange of their work.
And old saying; "Stealing from one is plagarism, stealing from many is research.
"It IS a childish attempt to justify what was done.
But that doesn't mean the point is invalid.
My generation doesn't respect artificial boundaries imposed by intellectual property.
And I can point the finger firmly at RIAA's overly-aggressive enforcement tactics as the de facto reason for that.
We live in a world super-saturated in information, and we have a strong innate desire to share that information.
We post details of our innermost thoughts and daily activities online where our friends, family, coworkers, even random strangers, can see.
Do you really think that if we value our own privacy so little we're going to respect the access barriers imposed by faceless corporations and over-zealous government officials?We are seeing tectonic plates smashing together here -- intellectual property versus my generation's seemingly insatiable appetite for self-disclosure and publication.
It's a mess of international law, court judgements, congressional hearings, and everything else.
But eventually, intellectual property will die.
It will do so at glacial speed, but it will die, because fundamentally the benefits to society being able to freely access and exchange information massively outweigh the benefits from ceding control to interested parties.
That isn't to say in some select cases the practice won't continue... But the list of reasons will grow shorter, and the laws that gave the institution a form and purpose will melt away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124470</id>
	<title>Re:The most interesting sentence in the article</title>
	<author>Oligonicella</author>
	<datestamp>1265997600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Artistic questions aside, can you argue that plagiarism damages the author of the plagiarized work if it increases sales?"<br> <br>
Sure.  Copyright is not about sales.  It is about the author having exclusive distribution.  When you plagiarize, you take that right from the author.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Artistic questions aside , can you argue that plagiarism damages the author of the plagiarized work if it increases sales ?
" Sure .
Copyright is not about sales .
It is about the author having exclusive distribution .
When you plagiarize , you take that right from the author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Artistic questions aside, can you argue that plagiarism damages the author of the plagiarized work if it increases sales?
" 
Sure.
Copyright is not about sales.
It is about the author having exclusive distribution.
When you plagiarize, you take that right from the author.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122694</id>
	<title>Re:wait, what's the problem?</title>
	<author>failedlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1265982540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just about to make a similar post. How dare you steal my ideas!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just about to make a similar post .
How dare you steal my ideas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just about to make a similar post.
How dare you steal my ideas!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124484</id>
	<title>Re:The most interesting sentence in the article</title>
	<author>Oligonicella</author>
	<datestamp>1265997840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The simple fact is that plagiarism does not exist. Only in the academic world does the concept exist. In the real world, plagiarism itself is perfectly legal, and at worst is a moral/ethical failing."<br> <br>
That paragraph contradicts itself several ways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The simple fact is that plagiarism does not exist .
Only in the academic world does the concept exist .
In the real world , plagiarism itself is perfectly legal , and at worst is a moral/ethical failing .
" That paragraph contradicts itself several ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The simple fact is that plagiarism does not exist.
Only in the academic world does the concept exist.
In the real world, plagiarism itself is perfectly legal, and at worst is a moral/ethical failing.
" 
That paragraph contradicts itself several ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125542</id>
	<title>It's not that simple</title>
	<author>zmooc</author>
	<datestamp>1266057900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically there are several "types" of sampling in music.</p><p>The first one is simply sampling instruments. This can be considered the same as using the same words as another author. This is more about the technical process of recording such instruments than it is about the composition. No problem here, I think.</p><p>The second one is sampling musical phrases. A drumloop or a guitar-riff or so. Once again, this is quite a lot about the recording-aspect and just a little bit about the composition. Even though there are incredible many possibilities in combining tones and rhythms, a lot of similarities can be pointed out, not in the least place since music is influenced heavily by fashion and culture. This could be compared to using well-known phrases from literature (to be or not to be?:-)).</p><p>And then there's the sampling of lyrics. This is a bit more complex; an important aspect of this is the voice of the singer, which is something very personal. This aspect can be compared (a little bit) to the font of a book. Reusing such fonts is commonly accepted, but if you'd imitate a writers handwriting, this becomes something else entirely.</p><p>In general, the comparison is hard to make. Music is a sort of three-dimensional; many phrases play at the same time, but also they repeat, often in complex ways. Also, such phrases can be transposed in frequency. It's a composition of layers. Literature is not; it is - by definition - one-dimensional. Linear. Also, there is no extensive use of repetition (with the exception of poetry, I will discuss that below). Where in music, one can sample a single layer without capturing the essence of (that part of) of the musical piece, in literature this is not really possible. If one copies an entire paragraph, it's just that: a copy. No reordering, repetition or layering occurs.</p><p>And then there's the way we make music. One always uses an instrument created by someone else and that is often played according to certain rules. In this sense, reusing sounds has always been acceptable in music and the rules cause the reusing of phrases to be rather common as well. It's even the way everybody learns how to make music: by copying others. Even the reuse of a "type of sound" is extremely common; that's why we have different musical genres. There are millions of possibilities to combine sound, but we only choose an extremely small subset of them, as determined by our culture, which demands similarities in music. Music that does not copy as least a small aspect of other music is generally not very popular.</p><p>Also, music is poetry a lot more like poetry, not prose. When lyrics are involved, it even IS poetry. So there is a rather fine line between some kinds of music an some kinds of literature while an enourmous gap exists between other kinds of music and literature.</p><p>More in general, no two forms of reuse can be compared. They're all completely different and the act of reusing has always been allowed until copyright-laws made it illegal sometime in the past two centuries. Therefore, what we're discussing here is a LEGAL and FINANCIAL problem, not a MORAL one. The moral part of this is actually quite simple and extremely hard at the same time: on the one hand, mankind produces art, which is and always has been meant to be spread since such art only has value withing the culture that consumes it and provides feedback. On the other hand, most of us know the feeling (moral is about feeling) when someone copies something you put a lot of work in without giving you credit. Some may also know the proud feeling when you find that a theory or trick you thought up was reused somewhere. So whether credit is given or not, we can often not even explain for our own intellectual property whether reuse of it is morally acceptable. Reusing art can been seen as a compliment or as theft. It is a complex interaction between the original author, the reuser and their audience. Sometimes such reuse is even encouraged (remixing of music, youtube mashups) while sometimes one explicitly attempts to preve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically there are several " types " of sampling in music.The first one is simply sampling instruments .
This can be considered the same as using the same words as another author .
This is more about the technical process of recording such instruments than it is about the composition .
No problem here , I think.The second one is sampling musical phrases .
A drumloop or a guitar-riff or so .
Once again , this is quite a lot about the recording-aspect and just a little bit about the composition .
Even though there are incredible many possibilities in combining tones and rhythms , a lot of similarities can be pointed out , not in the least place since music is influenced heavily by fashion and culture .
This could be compared to using well-known phrases from literature ( to be or not to be ?
: - ) ) .And then there 's the sampling of lyrics .
This is a bit more complex ; an important aspect of this is the voice of the singer , which is something very personal .
This aspect can be compared ( a little bit ) to the font of a book .
Reusing such fonts is commonly accepted , but if you 'd imitate a writers handwriting , this becomes something else entirely.In general , the comparison is hard to make .
Music is a sort of three-dimensional ; many phrases play at the same time , but also they repeat , often in complex ways .
Also , such phrases can be transposed in frequency .
It 's a composition of layers .
Literature is not ; it is - by definition - one-dimensional .
Linear. Also , there is no extensive use of repetition ( with the exception of poetry , I will discuss that below ) .
Where in music , one can sample a single layer without capturing the essence of ( that part of ) of the musical piece , in literature this is not really possible .
If one copies an entire paragraph , it 's just that : a copy .
No reordering , repetition or layering occurs.And then there 's the way we make music .
One always uses an instrument created by someone else and that is often played according to certain rules .
In this sense , reusing sounds has always been acceptable in music and the rules cause the reusing of phrases to be rather common as well .
It 's even the way everybody learns how to make music : by copying others .
Even the reuse of a " type of sound " is extremely common ; that 's why we have different musical genres .
There are millions of possibilities to combine sound , but we only choose an extremely small subset of them , as determined by our culture , which demands similarities in music .
Music that does not copy as least a small aspect of other music is generally not very popular.Also , music is poetry a lot more like poetry , not prose .
When lyrics are involved , it even IS poetry .
So there is a rather fine line between some kinds of music an some kinds of literature while an enourmous gap exists between other kinds of music and literature.More in general , no two forms of reuse can be compared .
They 're all completely different and the act of reusing has always been allowed until copyright-laws made it illegal sometime in the past two centuries .
Therefore , what we 're discussing here is a LEGAL and FINANCIAL problem , not a MORAL one .
The moral part of this is actually quite simple and extremely hard at the same time : on the one hand , mankind produces art , which is and always has been meant to be spread since such art only has value withing the culture that consumes it and provides feedback .
On the other hand , most of us know the feeling ( moral is about feeling ) when someone copies something you put a lot of work in without giving you credit .
Some may also know the proud feeling when you find that a theory or trick you thought up was reused somewhere .
So whether credit is given or not , we can often not even explain for our own intellectual property whether reuse of it is morally acceptable .
Reusing art can been seen as a compliment or as theft .
It is a complex interaction between the original author , the reuser and their audience .
Sometimes such reuse is even encouraged ( remixing of music , youtube mashups ) while sometimes one explicitly attempts to preve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically there are several "types" of sampling in music.The first one is simply sampling instruments.
This can be considered the same as using the same words as another author.
This is more about the technical process of recording such instruments than it is about the composition.
No problem here, I think.The second one is sampling musical phrases.
A drumloop or a guitar-riff or so.
Once again, this is quite a lot about the recording-aspect and just a little bit about the composition.
Even though there are incredible many possibilities in combining tones and rhythms, a lot of similarities can be pointed out, not in the least place since music is influenced heavily by fashion and culture.
This could be compared to using well-known phrases from literature (to be or not to be?
:-)).And then there's the sampling of lyrics.
This is a bit more complex; an important aspect of this is the voice of the singer, which is something very personal.
This aspect can be compared (a little bit) to the font of a book.
Reusing such fonts is commonly accepted, but if you'd imitate a writers handwriting, this becomes something else entirely.In general, the comparison is hard to make.
Music is a sort of three-dimensional; many phrases play at the same time, but also they repeat, often in complex ways.
Also, such phrases can be transposed in frequency.
It's a composition of layers.
Literature is not; it is - by definition - one-dimensional.
Linear. Also, there is no extensive use of repetition (with the exception of poetry, I will discuss that below).
Where in music, one can sample a single layer without capturing the essence of (that part of) of the musical piece, in literature this is not really possible.
If one copies an entire paragraph, it's just that: a copy.
No reordering, repetition or layering occurs.And then there's the way we make music.
One always uses an instrument created by someone else and that is often played according to certain rules.
In this sense, reusing sounds has always been acceptable in music and the rules cause the reusing of phrases to be rather common as well.
It's even the way everybody learns how to make music: by copying others.
Even the reuse of a "type of sound" is extremely common; that's why we have different musical genres.
There are millions of possibilities to combine sound, but we only choose an extremely small subset of them, as determined by our culture, which demands similarities in music.
Music that does not copy as least a small aspect of other music is generally not very popular.Also, music is poetry a lot more like poetry, not prose.
When lyrics are involved, it even IS poetry.
So there is a rather fine line between some kinds of music an some kinds of literature while an enourmous gap exists between other kinds of music and literature.More in general, no two forms of reuse can be compared.
They're all completely different and the act of reusing has always been allowed until copyright-laws made it illegal sometime in the past two centuries.
Therefore, what we're discussing here is a LEGAL and FINANCIAL problem, not a MORAL one.
The moral part of this is actually quite simple and extremely hard at the same time: on the one hand, mankind produces art, which is and always has been meant to be spread since such art only has value withing the culture that consumes it and provides feedback.
On the other hand, most of us know the feeling (moral is about feeling) when someone copies something you put a lot of work in without giving you credit.
Some may also know the proud feeling when you find that a theory or trick you thought up was reused somewhere.
So whether credit is given or not, we can often not even explain for our own intellectual property whether reuse of it is morally acceptable.
Reusing art can been seen as a compliment or as theft.
It is a complex interaction between the original author, the reuser and their audience.
Sometimes such reuse is even encouraged (remixing of music, youtube mashups) while sometimes one explicitly attempts to preve</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121602</id>
	<title>Re:Childish</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1265977620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Duh. She's 17, so obviously she's a child.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh .
She 's 17 , so obviously she 's a child .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh.
She's 17, so obviously she's a child.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31134012</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts on this</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1266156720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least completely originally write (and there's nothing wrong with it if someone happened to have come up with those exact words before) the entire thing.<br>
<br>
It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least completely originally write ( and there 's nothing wrong with it if someone happened to have come up with those exact words before ) the entire thing .
It was a dark and stormy night ; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals , when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets ( for it is in London that our scene lies ) , rattling along the housetops , and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least completely originally write (and there's nothing wrong with it if someone happened to have come up with those exact words before) the entire thing.
It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120554</id>
	<title>Re:I Just Can't Agree With This</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1265973540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I guess I am not from her Generation but sampling started when I was in my early 20s. If done correctly in music it is like a collage and it is a new piece of art.<br>When done wrong it is theft.<br>I am thinking of Ice Ice Baby as a good example of done wrong.<br>In this books case I would say it is theft from the story "In one case, an entire page was lifted with few changes."<br>Dude that isn't sampling that is a cover!</p><p>Or to put another way. Every generation at 17 thinks that the world is a totally different place from the one their parents lived in. By the time we hit 35 we all start to think man it probably really wasn't. And at 40 we all start saying What the hell where we thinking when we where 17. What idiots we where but it sure was fun.<br>So no she is just another dumb 17 year old that thinks the rules don't apply anymore because things are so different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I guess I am not from her Generation but sampling started when I was in my early 20s .
If done correctly in music it is like a collage and it is a new piece of art.When done wrong it is theft.I am thinking of Ice Ice Baby as a good example of done wrong.In this books case I would say it is theft from the story " In one case , an entire page was lifted with few changes .
" Dude that is n't sampling that is a cover ! Or to put another way .
Every generation at 17 thinks that the world is a totally different place from the one their parents lived in .
By the time we hit 35 we all start to think man it probably really was n't .
And at 40 we all start saying What the hell where we thinking when we where 17 .
What idiots we where but it sure was fun.So no she is just another dumb 17 year old that thinks the rules do n't apply anymore because things are so different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I guess I am not from her Generation but sampling started when I was in my early 20s.
If done correctly in music it is like a collage and it is a new piece of art.When done wrong it is theft.I am thinking of Ice Ice Baby as a good example of done wrong.In this books case I would say it is theft from the story "In one case, an entire page was lifted with few changes.
"Dude that isn't sampling that is a cover!Or to put another way.
Every generation at 17 thinks that the world is a totally different place from the one their parents lived in.
By the time we hit 35 we all start to think man it probably really wasn't.
And at 40 we all start saying What the hell where we thinking when we where 17.
What idiots we where but it sure was fun.So no she is just another dumb 17 year old that thinks the rules don't apply anymore because things are so different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121784</id>
	<title>A different view of the economic argument...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265978400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The other theory is the economic one: that copyright exists so that authors get paid. Although we'd need to see real numbers to know for sure, the fact that sales of "Axolotl Roadkill" seems to be driving increased sales of "Strobo" seems to indicate that this usage of text from Strobo satisfies that version of copyright rationale as well. It'll be interesting to see what Airen says about the use of his work. Does he feel ripped off, or flattered?"</p><p>If that is the case, it is most likely only because the passages were recognized and then associated with the original author's work.  A feat that would have been easily accomplished had she given recognition to the original author.  If the author's work is obscure enough or is not read in the same circles, then it is possible that no recognition would have been made and hence little benefit to the original author.  Or, perhaps it is the scandal itself that is driving the sales; if she had properly given credit then who would care about the original author's work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The other theory is the economic one : that copyright exists so that authors get paid .
Although we 'd need to see real numbers to know for sure , the fact that sales of " Axolotl Roadkill " seems to be driving increased sales of " Strobo " seems to indicate that this usage of text from Strobo satisfies that version of copyright rationale as well .
It 'll be interesting to see what Airen says about the use of his work .
Does he feel ripped off , or flattered ?
" If that is the case , it is most likely only because the passages were recognized and then associated with the original author 's work .
A feat that would have been easily accomplished had she given recognition to the original author .
If the author 's work is obscure enough or is not read in the same circles , then it is possible that no recognition would have been made and hence little benefit to the original author .
Or , perhaps it is the scandal itself that is driving the sales ; if she had properly given credit then who would care about the original author 's work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The other theory is the economic one: that copyright exists so that authors get paid.
Although we'd need to see real numbers to know for sure, the fact that sales of "Axolotl Roadkill" seems to be driving increased sales of "Strobo" seems to indicate that this usage of text from Strobo satisfies that version of copyright rationale as well.
It'll be interesting to see what Airen says about the use of his work.
Does he feel ripped off, or flattered?
"If that is the case, it is most likely only because the passages were recognized and then associated with the original author's work.
A feat that would have been easily accomplished had she given recognition to the original author.
If the author's work is obscure enough or is not read in the same circles, then it is possible that no recognition would have been made and hence little benefit to the original author.
Or, perhaps it is the scandal itself that is driving the sales; if she had properly given credit then who would care about the original author's work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31131084</id>
	<title>Re:The most interesting sentence in the article</title>
	<author>dfghjk</author>
	<datestamp>1266066180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you anecdotal evidence of one possible sale is proof that there was no damage and all upside.  That's some real genius thinking.</p><p>I hope you aren't suggesting that this case of plagiarism is, in fact, a creative "mashup" work.  Literature and music/video performance are not analogous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you anecdotal evidence of one possible sale is proof that there was no damage and all upside .
That 's some real genius thinking.I hope you are n't suggesting that this case of plagiarism is , in fact , a creative " mashup " work .
Literature and music/video performance are not analogous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you anecdotal evidence of one possible sale is proof that there was no damage and all upside.
That's some real genius thinking.I hope you aren't suggesting that this case of plagiarism is, in fact, a creative "mashup" work.
Literature and music/video performance are not analogous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31126502</id>
	<title>Author Fail.</title>
	<author>pacergh</author>
	<datestamp>1266072360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.</p><p>My only question is why copyright laws have not kicked in.  There must be a deal with the co-opted author or authors.</p><p>Especially interesting is that this is in Germany.  European copyright laws tend to have much stronger moral rights that allow authors to prevent the use of their work.</p><p>And, as for being an artist or a thief &mdash; those are not mutually exclusive.</p><p>The bigger sin, however, was not disclosing who she was sourcing.  The sourcing itself, artfully done, is not the problem</p><p>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously.My only question is why copyright laws have not kicked in .
There must be a deal with the co-opted author or authors.Especially interesting is that this is in Germany .
European copyright laws tend to have much stronger moral rights that allow authors to prevent the use of their work.And , as for being an artist or a thief    those are not mutually exclusive.The bigger sin , however , was not disclosing who she was sourcing .
The sourcing itself , artfully done , is not the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.My only question is why copyright laws have not kicked in.
There must be a deal with the co-opted author or authors.Especially interesting is that this is in Germany.
European copyright laws tend to have much stronger moral rights that allow authors to prevent the use of their work.And, as for being an artist or a thief — those are not mutually exclusive.The bigger sin, however, was not disclosing who she was sourcing.
The sourcing itself, artfully done, is not the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121054</id>
	<title>Did She Create Something New?</title>
	<author>thethirdwheel</author>
	<datestamp>1265975160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that it's possible for a book composed entirely of excerpts to be an excellent, creative, and original work.  The key question for me is whether the author stole someone's novel and changed some bits, or genuinely pasted together pieces from a body of work in order to create something new.</p><p>Having not read the book, and seen no real analysis of its content, I can't comment on whether this was achieved, but if it was I don't think it flies in the face of copyright (especially as applied to literature).</p><p>You copyright a work, not a portion of a work (though of course portions are also protected), and the purpose of that copyright is to prevent mis-attribution of praise (whether monetary or otherwise) for the creative output generated.  If her book uses the words of another author in parts in order to support her unique overarching theme, I don't think the spirit of copyright has really been violated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that it 's possible for a book composed entirely of excerpts to be an excellent , creative , and original work .
The key question for me is whether the author stole someone 's novel and changed some bits , or genuinely pasted together pieces from a body of work in order to create something new.Having not read the book , and seen no real analysis of its content , I ca n't comment on whether this was achieved , but if it was I do n't think it flies in the face of copyright ( especially as applied to literature ) .You copyright a work , not a portion of a work ( though of course portions are also protected ) , and the purpose of that copyright is to prevent mis-attribution of praise ( whether monetary or otherwise ) for the creative output generated .
If her book uses the words of another author in parts in order to support her unique overarching theme , I do n't think the spirit of copyright has really been violated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that it's possible for a book composed entirely of excerpts to be an excellent, creative, and original work.
The key question for me is whether the author stole someone's novel and changed some bits, or genuinely pasted together pieces from a body of work in order to create something new.Having not read the book, and seen no real analysis of its content, I can't comment on whether this was achieved, but if it was I don't think it flies in the face of copyright (especially as applied to literature).You copyright a work, not a portion of a work (though of course portions are also protected), and the purpose of that copyright is to prevent mis-attribution of praise (whether monetary or otherwise) for the creative output generated.
If her book uses the words of another author in parts in order to support her unique overarching theme, I don't think the spirit of copyright has really been violated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122800</id>
	<title>Re:Whee</title>
	<author>Akira Kogami</author>
	<datestamp>1265983080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most musicians who use samples in their releases get permission from the copyright owner of the sample. I don't even slightly doubt that someone on a major label like Kid Rock had every sample he used cleared by the copyright holder. If you get sued for sampling, it's because you didn't get it cleared.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most musicians who use samples in their releases get permission from the copyright owner of the sample .
I do n't even slightly doubt that someone on a major label like Kid Rock had every sample he used cleared by the copyright holder .
If you get sued for sampling , it 's because you did n't get it cleared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most musicians who use samples in their releases get permission from the copyright owner of the sample.
I don't even slightly doubt that someone on a major label like Kid Rock had every sample he used cleared by the copyright holder.
If you get sued for sampling, it's because you didn't get it cleared.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121324</id>
	<title>Happens in Research Too</title>
	<author>iOdin</author>
	<datestamp>1265976240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In terms of research literature, this happens too.  In fact, it may be even worse if you think about it.  I publish at least 3-4 papers each year in various different conferences and maybe a Journal or two.  Go figure... even if it is my work, if I am not careful, then I may be liable for "self-plagiarism", from which they can retract publications and even my doctoral degree if the University deems it a serious offense.  And we are not talking here about copy-paste to a whole paper section, even taking a sentence or two from one of your previous publications is debatable.  I personally think this policy is ridiculous as it forces me to reword everything, even the obvious, no matter how much overlap there may be between the current paper and one I just sent in through the pipeline a month ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In terms of research literature , this happens too .
In fact , it may be even worse if you think about it .
I publish at least 3-4 papers each year in various different conferences and maybe a Journal or two .
Go figure... even if it is my work , if I am not careful , then I may be liable for " self-plagiarism " , from which they can retract publications and even my doctoral degree if the University deems it a serious offense .
And we are not talking here about copy-paste to a whole paper section , even taking a sentence or two from one of your previous publications is debatable .
I personally think this policy is ridiculous as it forces me to reword everything , even the obvious , no matter how much overlap there may be between the current paper and one I just sent in through the pipeline a month ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In terms of research literature, this happens too.
In fact, it may be even worse if you think about it.
I publish at least 3-4 papers each year in various different conferences and maybe a Journal or two.
Go figure... even if it is my work, if I am not careful, then I may be liable for "self-plagiarism", from which they can retract publications and even my doctoral degree if the University deems it a serious offense.
And we are not talking here about copy-paste to a whole paper section, even taking a sentence or two from one of your previous publications is debatable.
I personally think this policy is ridiculous as it forces me to reword everything, even the obvious, no matter how much overlap there may be between the current paper and one I just sent in through the pipeline a month ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120722</id>
	<title>Works Cited</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265974080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's not there, you plagiarized.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's not there , you plagiarized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's not there, you plagiarized.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123632</id>
	<title>Re:Definitely Not</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1265989200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would permit her work on one proviso: it was done for free.
<p>
If she published this and charged nothing for it, or UP FRONT donated all proceeds after cost of printing and distribution to charity, then I'd let her slide. Principles have their price, and free is hard to beat.
</p><p>
but that's not what she did, so hell with her.
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would permit her work on one proviso : it was done for free .
If she published this and charged nothing for it , or UP FRONT donated all proceeds after cost of printing and distribution to charity , then I 'd let her slide .
Principles have their price , and free is hard to beat .
but that 's not what she did , so hell with her .
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would permit her work on one proviso: it was done for free.
If she published this and charged nothing for it, or UP FRONT donated all proceeds after cost of printing and distribution to charity, then I'd let her slide.
Principles have their price, and free is hard to beat.
but that's not what she did, so hell with her.
RS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120894</id>
	<title>Avoiding subconscious plagiarism?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265974680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if I write my own song, how do I know whether I have subconsciously plagiarized someone else's song? George Harrison got in trouble for this (see <i>Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music</i> about "My Sweet Lord"), and so did Michael Bolton (see <i>Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton</i>).</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I write my own song , how do I know whether I have subconsciously plagiarized someone else 's song ?
George Harrison got in trouble for this ( see Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music about " My Sweet Lord " ) , and so did Michael Bolton ( see Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I write my own song, how do I know whether I have subconsciously plagiarized someone else's song?
George Harrison got in trouble for this (see Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music about "My Sweet Lord"), and so did Michael Bolton (see Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120880</id>
	<title>Re:Generating sales for the plagiarized book</title>
	<author>Tezcat</author>
	<datestamp>1265974620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As stated in the article, the whole controversy is also generating sales for the lesser-known "Strobo" book that was allegedly plagiarized. That can't be a bad thing.

<a href="http://www.amazon.de/Axolotl-Roadkill-Helene-Hegemann/dp/3550087926/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1266012743&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.de/Axolotl-Roadkill-Helene-Hegemann/dp/3550087926/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1266012743&amp;sr=8-1</a> [amazon.de]

Still waiting for copyright enforcement advocates to realize that copyright infringement isn't always a bad thing.</p></div>

</blockquote><p>

The <i>scandal</i> is generating sales. If there was no scandal, if she had got away with it, the original copyright holder would not be profiting at all, while the plagiariser raked it in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As stated in the article , the whole controversy is also generating sales for the lesser-known " Strobo " book that was allegedly plagiarized .
That ca n't be a bad thing .
http : //www.amazon.de/Axolotl-Roadkill-Helene-Hegemann/dp/3550087926/ref = sr \ _1 \ _1 ? ie = UTF8&amp;s = books&amp;qid = 1266012743&amp;sr = 8-1 [ amazon.de ] Still waiting for copyright enforcement advocates to realize that copyright infringement is n't always a bad thing .
The scandal is generating sales .
If there was no scandal , if she had got away with it , the original copyright holder would not be profiting at all , while the plagiariser raked it in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As stated in the article, the whole controversy is also generating sales for the lesser-known "Strobo" book that was allegedly plagiarized.
That can't be a bad thing.
http://www.amazon.de/Axolotl-Roadkill-Helene-Hegemann/dp/3550087926/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1266012743&amp;sr=8-1 [amazon.de]

Still waiting for copyright enforcement advocates to realize that copyright infringement isn't always a bad thing.
The scandal is generating sales.
If there was no scandal, if she had got away with it, the original copyright holder would not be profiting at all, while the plagiariser raked it in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121348</id>
	<title>Ancient Behavior Channelled through New Tech</title>
	<author>tobiah</author>
	<datestamp>1265976360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Retelling popular tales with one's own twist is an ancient human behavior. The story of a messiah with a miraculous birth, tragic death and resurrection goes back at least to Horus, and appears at least twice in the Old Testament. Copland lifted the theme for Simple Gifts from an old hymn, very close to sampling. The promo shot for the current season of "Lost" recreates Michelangelo&rsquo;s Last Supper. Art has always cannibalized/plagiarized previous art.
</p><p>The difference is now we have new tools for this old behavior, allowing us to cut and paste words, sound and image directly into the new story, without having to recreate it. As programmers we all do it worse than any other group, recruiting layers of packaged code into serving our own. But the behavior is hardly novel. If there's anything truly new here at all, it's the concepts of copyright and plagiarism.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Retelling popular tales with one 's own twist is an ancient human behavior .
The story of a messiah with a miraculous birth , tragic death and resurrection goes back at least to Horus , and appears at least twice in the Old Testament .
Copland lifted the theme for Simple Gifts from an old hymn , very close to sampling .
The promo shot for the current season of " Lost " recreates Michelangelo    s Last Supper .
Art has always cannibalized/plagiarized previous art .
The difference is now we have new tools for this old behavior , allowing us to cut and paste words , sound and image directly into the new story , without having to recreate it .
As programmers we all do it worse than any other group , recruiting layers of packaged code into serving our own .
But the behavior is hardly novel .
If there 's anything truly new here at all , it 's the concepts of copyright and plagiarism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Retelling popular tales with one's own twist is an ancient human behavior.
The story of a messiah with a miraculous birth, tragic death and resurrection goes back at least to Horus, and appears at least twice in the Old Testament.
Copland lifted the theme for Simple Gifts from an old hymn, very close to sampling.
The promo shot for the current season of "Lost" recreates Michelangelo’s Last Supper.
Art has always cannibalized/plagiarized previous art.
The difference is now we have new tools for this old behavior, allowing us to cut and paste words, sound and image directly into the new story, without having to recreate it.
As programmers we all do it worse than any other group, recruiting layers of packaged code into serving our own.
But the behavior is hardly novel.
If there's anything truly new here at all, it's the concepts of copyright and plagiarism.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31126998</id>
	<title>Perhap's it's the current state of language?</title>
	<author>tius</author>
	<datestamp>1266077160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps this has more to do with the state of language than theft or not giving due credit?  The "author" claims or more likely believes, that they are "sampling."  That might suggest that they're trying to express something that they themselves can't quite come up with in words.</p><p>I seem to recall in John Ralston Saul's, "Voltaire's Bastards," that he presented a thesis where language was becoming so specialized that it became difficult to impossible to express ideas unless one was a specialist in that particular area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this has more to do with the state of language than theft or not giving due credit ?
The " author " claims or more likely believes , that they are " sampling .
" That might suggest that they 're trying to express something that they themselves ca n't quite come up with in words.I seem to recall in John Ralston Saul 's , " Voltaire 's Bastards , " that he presented a thesis where language was becoming so specialized that it became difficult to impossible to express ideas unless one was a specialist in that particular area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this has more to do with the state of language than theft or not giving due credit?
The "author" claims or more likely believes, that they are "sampling.
"  That might suggest that they're trying to express something that they themselves can't quite come up with in words.I seem to recall in John Ralston Saul's, "Voltaire's Bastards," that he presented a thesis where language was becoming so specialized that it became difficult to impossible to express ideas unless one was a specialist in that particular area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123386</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts on this</title>
	<author>knuth</author>
	<datestamp>1265987040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have great expectations of you as a writer. How the dickens did you come up with that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have great expectations of you as a writer .
How the dickens did you come up with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have great expectations of you as a writer.
How the dickens did you come up with that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125924</id>
	<title>Re:Generating sales for the plagiarized book</title>
	<author>LainTouko</author>
	<datestamp>1266064080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One should really distinguish between the right to freedom, and the 'right' to control others. You only impinge on someone's <i>rights</i> if you stop them from doing something, in some way. Disobeying an order in a way which doesn't affect what they can do is impinging on their <i>power</i>. The term 'copyright' is doublespeak, unlike genuine property rights, in which eating an apple stops others from eating it, copyright is purely a <i>restriction</i> on people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One should really distinguish between the right to freedom , and the 'right ' to control others .
You only impinge on someone 's rights if you stop them from doing something , in some way .
Disobeying an order in a way which does n't affect what they can do is impinging on their power .
The term 'copyright ' is doublespeak , unlike genuine property rights , in which eating an apple stops others from eating it , copyright is purely a restriction on people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One should really distinguish between the right to freedom, and the 'right' to control others.
You only impinge on someone's rights if you stop them from doing something, in some way.
Disobeying an order in a way which doesn't affect what they can do is impinging on their power.
The term 'copyright' is doublespeak, unlike genuine property rights, in which eating an apple stops others from eating it, copyright is purely a restriction on people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121578</id>
	<title>what do you mean "was"?? Or did you mean 2009?</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1265977500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...."</p><p>This describes modern-day America.  If you are preparing a treatise on the state of the modern world, may I recommend a novelization instead?  Not only do they are easier to turn into movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It was the best of times , it was the worst of times.... " This describes modern-day America .
If you are preparing a treatise on the state of the modern world , may I recommend a novelization instead ?
Not only do they are easier to turn into movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...."This describes modern-day America.
If you are preparing a treatise on the state of the modern world, may I recommend a novelization instead?
Not only do they are easier to turn into movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120266</id>
	<title>It's sad that some people think this is okay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265972640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Her generation grew up sampling from other sources -- and I've always felt that was a result of a weak and uncreative person. I wonder where is the line when sampling becomes copying. In any event, I hope that the people being stolen from are being compensated ( but I doubt it ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Her generation grew up sampling from other sources -- and I 've always felt that was a result of a weak and uncreative person .
I wonder where is the line when sampling becomes copying .
In any event , I hope that the people being stolen from are being compensated ( but I doubt it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Her generation grew up sampling from other sources -- and I've always felt that was a result of a weak and uncreative person.
I wonder where is the line when sampling becomes copying.
In any event, I hope that the people being stolen from are being compensated ( but I doubt it ).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125980</id>
	<title>*First* book?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266064980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>s/first/only/</p><p>Or so we can hope.</p><p>Captcha: "DODGED".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>s/first/only/Or so we can hope.Captcha : " DODGED " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>s/first/only/Or so we can hope.Captcha: "DODGED".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120650</id>
	<title>Is it just me?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me, or does the requirement that I cite my source seem like a social convention that is open to debate?</p><p>Jefferson and Madison certainly thought so. Jefferson originally argued against copyright altogether. When Madison convinced him that it was a necessary legitimacy in order to promote commerce and ensure economic stability, he reinspected his philosophy. Having done so, he advocated for a copyright term of half the average lifespan of the contemporary population. He claimed this was adequate to ensure that an author would profit from his effort without impinging on the next generation's ability to do so as well.</p><p>It took Sonny Bono and the interests of an 800 pound Californian mouse to extend the copyright term to its current, life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship. See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_Term\_Extension\_Act" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Bono's Copyright Term Extension Act</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Hey, what happened to equal rights for people, Sonny!! (Wonder if Cher got any of his campaign contributions...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me , or does the requirement that I cite my source seem like a social convention that is open to debate ? Jefferson and Madison certainly thought so .
Jefferson originally argued against copyright altogether .
When Madison convinced him that it was a necessary legitimacy in order to promote commerce and ensure economic stability , he reinspected his philosophy .
Having done so , he advocated for a copyright term of half the average lifespan of the contemporary population .
He claimed this was adequate to ensure that an author would profit from his effort without impinging on the next generation 's ability to do so as well.It took Sonny Bono and the interests of an 800 pound Californian mouse to extend the copyright term to its current , life of the author plus 50 years , or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship .
See : Bono 's Copyright Term Extension Act [ wikipedia.org ] Hey , what happened to equal rights for people , Sonny ! !
( Wonder if Cher got any of his campaign contributions... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me, or does the requirement that I cite my source seem like a social convention that is open to debate?Jefferson and Madison certainly thought so.
Jefferson originally argued against copyright altogether.
When Madison convinced him that it was a necessary legitimacy in order to promote commerce and ensure economic stability, he reinspected his philosophy.
Having done so, he advocated for a copyright term of half the average lifespan of the contemporary population.
He claimed this was adequate to ensure that an author would profit from his effort without impinging on the next generation's ability to do so as well.It took Sonny Bono and the interests of an 800 pound Californian mouse to extend the copyright term to its current, life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship.
See: Bono's Copyright Term Extension Act [wikipedia.org]Hey, what happened to equal rights for people, Sonny!!
(Wonder if Cher got any of his campaign contributions...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122014</id>
	<title>Yes, but later than you think.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265979420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"These rules are here for a reason." Right..</p><p>She's savvy enough to realize she was breaking the rules, and savvy enough to simply state that she's calling "BS" on them rather than play the innocent victim route.  Us 30 somethings will have about as much luck convincing kids her age to "shape up an do original work" as the current 50-somethings do convincing us that we should buy our music afresh every time a new format comes out.</p><p>It'll take another 20 - 30 years before her generation is in charge, but I'm guessing the era of the printing press copyright regime really is behind us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" These rules are here for a reason .
" Right..She 's savvy enough to realize she was breaking the rules , and savvy enough to simply state that she 's calling " BS " on them rather than play the innocent victim route .
Us 30 somethings will have about as much luck convincing kids her age to " shape up an do original work " as the current 50-somethings do convincing us that we should buy our music afresh every time a new format comes out.It 'll take another 20 - 30 years before her generation is in charge , but I 'm guessing the era of the printing press copyright regime really is behind us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"These rules are here for a reason.
" Right..She's savvy enough to realize she was breaking the rules, and savvy enough to simply state that she's calling "BS" on them rather than play the innocent victim route.
Us 30 somethings will have about as much luck convincing kids her age to "shape up an do original work" as the current 50-somethings do convincing us that we should buy our music afresh every time a new format comes out.It'll take another 20 - 30 years before her generation is in charge, but I'm guessing the era of the printing press copyright regime really is behind us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121096</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts on this</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1265975280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way</i> when suddenly <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride\_and\_Prejudice\_and\_Zombies" title="wikipedia.org">a lone zombie staggered into the road before us</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we were all going directly to Heaven , we were all going the other way when suddenly a lone zombie staggered into the road before us [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way when suddenly a lone zombie staggered into the road before us [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125830</id>
	<title>Uncreative person?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266062700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bach did it.<br>Mozart did it.<br>Beethoven did it.<br>Prokofiev did it.<br>Tchaikovsky did it.<br>Rachmaninof did it.</p><p>And that is only some of the most famous classical musicians for starters.</p><p>Creativity is not the skill to create something from nothing (I propose that such a thing is impossible) but the skill of transform the cultre you are receiving.</p><p>That act of transformation is under relentless attack from rich conglomerates with the aid of morally bankrupt politicians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bach did it.Mozart did it.Beethoven did it.Prokofiev did it.Tchaikovsky did it.Rachmaninof did it.And that is only some of the most famous classical musicians for starters.Creativity is not the skill to create something from nothing ( I propose that such a thing is impossible ) but the skill of transform the cultre you are receiving.That act of transformation is under relentless attack from rich conglomerates with the aid of morally bankrupt politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bach did it.Mozart did it.Beethoven did it.Prokofiev did it.Tchaikovsky did it.Rachmaninof did it.And that is only some of the most famous classical musicians for starters.Creativity is not the skill to create something from nothing (I propose that such a thing is impossible) but the skill of transform the cultre you are receiving.That act of transformation is under relentless attack from rich conglomerates with the aid of morally bankrupt politicians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124690</id>
	<title>My attempt at a summary of this discussion</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1266000180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems to be a relatively nuanced discussion of an IP-law related issue, at least by this site's standards.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>In our terms, it has to do with how the level of copyright protection affects input costs for new works.<br>There's a bit of moral creators' rights theory in this discussion.<br>However, a lot of the discussion has to do with what policy leads to better or more-popular works; that part of the commentary also seems strictly economic, as it relates to the utility people derive from the products in question.</p><p>A lot of economic issues are, apparently, quite frankly, somewhat unclear or complicated, like the answer to the questions posed in this article. I'm not sure what answer to offer, myself, and I understand why the discussion went so back and forth.</p><p>Interesting that the discussion came about because what is arguably just an attempted defense of immature behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to be a relatively nuanced discussion of an IP-law related issue , at least by this site 's standards .
: ) In our terms , it has to do with how the level of copyright protection affects input costs for new works.There 's a bit of moral creators ' rights theory in this discussion.However , a lot of the discussion has to do with what policy leads to better or more-popular works ; that part of the commentary also seems strictly economic , as it relates to the utility people derive from the products in question.A lot of economic issues are , apparently , quite frankly , somewhat unclear or complicated , like the answer to the questions posed in this article .
I 'm not sure what answer to offer , myself , and I understand why the discussion went so back and forth.Interesting that the discussion came about because what is arguably just an attempted defense of immature behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to be a relatively nuanced discussion of an IP-law related issue, at least by this site's standards.
:)In our terms, it has to do with how the level of copyright protection affects input costs for new works.There's a bit of moral creators' rights theory in this discussion.However, a lot of the discussion has to do with what policy leads to better or more-popular works; that part of the commentary also seems strictly economic, as it relates to the utility people derive from the products in question.A lot of economic issues are, apparently, quite frankly, somewhat unclear or complicated, like the answer to the questions posed in this article.
I'm not sure what answer to offer, myself, and I understand why the discussion went so back and forth.Interesting that the discussion came about because what is arguably just an attempted defense of immature behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121266</id>
	<title>Kind of like... you know... always</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265975940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As somebody that spent four years studying English literature in college, I can tell you straight up that this is how writing worked for years and years and years.  It's only in the past century or so that we started being so rabid about total originality.  Shakespeare stole speeches from other people, as did most of his contemporaries.  In fact, it makes sense that you might be able to repurpose a speech about one thing for another artistic work.  That's how you end up with irony and lots of other logical comparisons.</p><p>The only thing this would change is that readers would have to pay more attention and would be able to get more meaning out of books.</p><p>That and because it would do to writing what filesharing did to music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As somebody that spent four years studying English literature in college , I can tell you straight up that this is how writing worked for years and years and years .
It 's only in the past century or so that we started being so rabid about total originality .
Shakespeare stole speeches from other people , as did most of his contemporaries .
In fact , it makes sense that you might be able to repurpose a speech about one thing for another artistic work .
That 's how you end up with irony and lots of other logical comparisons.The only thing this would change is that readers would have to pay more attention and would be able to get more meaning out of books.That and because it would do to writing what filesharing did to music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As somebody that spent four years studying English literature in college, I can tell you straight up that this is how writing worked for years and years and years.
It's only in the past century or so that we started being so rabid about total originality.
Shakespeare stole speeches from other people, as did most of his contemporaries.
In fact, it makes sense that you might be able to repurpose a speech about one thing for another artistic work.
That's how you end up with irony and lots of other logical comparisons.The only thing this would change is that readers would have to pay more attention and would be able to get more meaning out of books.That and because it would do to writing what filesharing did to music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121174</id>
	<title>Nothing new here....</title>
	<author>segfaultcoredump</author>
	<datestamp>1265975640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See Jonathan Lethem's excellent essay on the subject: <a href="http://harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387" title="harpers.org">http://harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387</a> [harpers.org]</p><p>Bonus points if you get to the end and read through the references section<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See Jonathan Lethem 's excellent essay on the subject : http : //harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387 [ harpers.org ] Bonus points if you get to the end and read through the references section : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See Jonathan Lethem's excellent essay on the subject: http://harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387 [harpers.org]Bonus points if you get to the end and read through the references section :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122490</id>
	<title>Music sampling is accompaniment</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1265981580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if you sample in music, the sampling is just accompaniment, backing tracks. In other words, the DJ samples, the MC does not.</p><p>Further, you don't pretend you didn't sample, you give credit where it's due. You often pay the original artist, especially if the sampling is very prominent.</p><p>This young lady is not only guilty of plagiarism, but also of misunderstanding sampling. It's not plagiarism.</p><p>The literary version of sampling would be to write a new, unplagiarized book using existing characters and settings from another book. Like a Star Wars themed novel. In that case you use Star Wars as backing for a new work.</p><p>The tragedy of this is the manuscript should have been considered a first draft and rewritten in one voice, even by a ghostwriter. Publishing the same exact phrases is not required in order to be unoriginal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you sample in music , the sampling is just accompaniment , backing tracks .
In other words , the DJ samples , the MC does not.Further , you do n't pretend you did n't sample , you give credit where it 's due .
You often pay the original artist , especially if the sampling is very prominent.This young lady is not only guilty of plagiarism , but also of misunderstanding sampling .
It 's not plagiarism.The literary version of sampling would be to write a new , unplagiarized book using existing characters and settings from another book .
Like a Star Wars themed novel .
In that case you use Star Wars as backing for a new work.The tragedy of this is the manuscript should have been considered a first draft and rewritten in one voice , even by a ghostwriter .
Publishing the same exact phrases is not required in order to be unoriginal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you sample in music, the sampling is just accompaniment, backing tracks.
In other words, the DJ samples, the MC does not.Further, you don't pretend you didn't sample, you give credit where it's due.
You often pay the original artist, especially if the sampling is very prominent.This young lady is not only guilty of plagiarism, but also of misunderstanding sampling.
It's not plagiarism.The literary version of sampling would be to write a new, unplagiarized book using existing characters and settings from another book.
Like a Star Wars themed novel.
In that case you use Star Wars as backing for a new work.The tragedy of this is the manuscript should have been considered a first draft and rewritten in one voice, even by a ghostwriter.
Publishing the same exact phrases is not required in order to be unoriginal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121128</id>
	<title>Re:It's sad that some people think this is okay</title>
	<author>Anders</author>
	<datestamp>1265975400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In any event, I hope that the people being stolen from are being compensated ( but I doubt it )</p> </div><p>If she stole, what did they lose?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In any event , I hope that the people being stolen from are being compensated ( but I doubt it ) If she stole , what did they lose ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In any event, I hope that the people being stolen from are being compensated ( but I doubt it ) If she stole, what did they lose?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430</id>
	<title>Re:Whee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On that last question, I disagree strongly. Books or music, there is a line between fair use and plagiarism. "Sampling" in popular music has definitely gone over that line.
<br> <br>
Sure... certain parts (generally small parts) can be sampled or "borrowed", and still be legitimate. But when you take people like Kid Rock for example, and listen to him outright take someone else's music -- with hardly a single change -- and then add lyrics of his own, that is not Fair Use, that is plagiarism. It is nothing but capitalizing on the talents of others when you have none of your own. And don't misunderstand me: I actually like Kid Rock's stuff. The problem is that it's really NOT "his" stuff. I think he should be in prison, not on album covers.
<br> <br>
And it's a doubly egregious offense because he has done it with the express intent to make a profit.
<br> <br>
Other people in the past have had the pants sued off of them, successfully, for "borrowing" a hell of a lot less than Kid Rock does. Time to call him (and others) on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On that last question , I disagree strongly .
Books or music , there is a line between fair use and plagiarism .
" Sampling " in popular music has definitely gone over that line .
Sure... certain parts ( generally small parts ) can be sampled or " borrowed " , and still be legitimate .
But when you take people like Kid Rock for example , and listen to him outright take someone else 's music -- with hardly a single change -- and then add lyrics of his own , that is not Fair Use , that is plagiarism .
It is nothing but capitalizing on the talents of others when you have none of your own .
And do n't misunderstand me : I actually like Kid Rock 's stuff .
The problem is that it 's really NOT " his " stuff .
I think he should be in prison , not on album covers .
And it 's a doubly egregious offense because he has done it with the express intent to make a profit .
Other people in the past have had the pants sued off of them , successfully , for " borrowing " a hell of a lot less than Kid Rock does .
Time to call him ( and others ) on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On that last question, I disagree strongly.
Books or music, there is a line between fair use and plagiarism.
"Sampling" in popular music has definitely gone over that line.
Sure... certain parts (generally small parts) can be sampled or "borrowed", and still be legitimate.
But when you take people like Kid Rock for example, and listen to him outright take someone else's music -- with hardly a single change -- and then add lyrics of his own, that is not Fair Use, that is plagiarism.
It is nothing but capitalizing on the talents of others when you have none of your own.
And don't misunderstand me: I actually like Kid Rock's stuff.
The problem is that it's really NOT "his" stuff.
I think he should be in prison, not on album covers.
And it's a doubly egregious offense because he has done it with the express intent to make a profit.
Other people in the past have had the pants sued off of them, successfully, for "borrowing" a hell of a lot less than Kid Rock does.
Time to call him (and others) on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123922</id>
	<title>Re:From the article...</title>
	<author>pigphish</author>
	<datestamp>1265991900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you summed up what I wanted to know so I will just copy it all.

Deef Pirmasens, the blogger who discovered the passages taken from &ldquo;Strobo,&rdquo; said that he could understand a few words or phrases seeping into the work through inspiration, but that he quickly noticed that there were too many for it to be a coincidence. &ldquo;To take an entire page from an author, as Helene Hegemann admitted to doing, with only slight changes and without asking the author, I consider that illegitimate,&rdquo; Mr. Pirmasens said.


Entire pages verbatim? She is the Vanilla Ice of literature sampling then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you summed up what I wanted to know so I will just copy it all .
Deef Pirmasens , the blogger who discovered the passages taken from    Strobo ,    said that he could understand a few words or phrases seeping into the work through inspiration , but that he quickly noticed that there were too many for it to be a coincidence .
   To take an entire page from an author , as Helene Hegemann admitted to doing , with only slight changes and without asking the author , I consider that illegitimate ,    Mr. Pirmasens said .
Entire pages verbatim ?
She is the Vanilla Ice of literature sampling then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you summed up what I wanted to know so I will just copy it all.
Deef Pirmasens, the blogger who discovered the passages taken from “Strobo,” said that he could understand a few words or phrases seeping into the work through inspiration, but that he quickly noticed that there were too many for it to be a coincidence.
“To take an entire page from an author, as Helene Hegemann admitted to doing, with only slight changes and without asking the author, I consider that illegitimate,” Mr. Pirmasens said.
Entire pages verbatim?
She is the Vanilla Ice of literature sampling then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122468</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>wjc\_25</author>
	<datestamp>1265981460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a good point. I'm surprised no one has brought up T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land"--it was controversial when it came out decades back for the same reason. Eliot lifted lines not only from well-known authors like Dante and Shakespeare but also lines from more obscure authors and the like. He provided footnotes to the work that mentioned some of the borrowings, but the work was so dense that even those footnotes covered only a fraction of the quotes.

I think it's important to find a middle ground. You can't expect an author to cite every brief quotation or allusion--that would be oppressively difficult for many types of works--but "remixing" or borrowing large sections wholesale should require permission or, at the very least, clear acknowledgment of the borrowing. When a musician remixes a song it is typically at the request of the artist or label that released the original composition; if we're following the standards of remixing, this author is still in the wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good point .
I 'm surprised no one has brought up T. S. Eliot 's " The Waste Land " --it was controversial when it came out decades back for the same reason .
Eliot lifted lines not only from well-known authors like Dante and Shakespeare but also lines from more obscure authors and the like .
He provided footnotes to the work that mentioned some of the borrowings , but the work was so dense that even those footnotes covered only a fraction of the quotes .
I think it 's important to find a middle ground .
You ca n't expect an author to cite every brief quotation or allusion--that would be oppressively difficult for many types of works--but " remixing " or borrowing large sections wholesale should require permission or , at the very least , clear acknowledgment of the borrowing .
When a musician remixes a song it is typically at the request of the artist or label that released the original composition ; if we 're following the standards of remixing , this author is still in the wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good point.
I'm surprised no one has brought up T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land"--it was controversial when it came out decades back for the same reason.
Eliot lifted lines not only from well-known authors like Dante and Shakespeare but also lines from more obscure authors and the like.
He provided footnotes to the work that mentioned some of the borrowings, but the work was so dense that even those footnotes covered only a fraction of the quotes.
I think it's important to find a middle ground.
You can't expect an author to cite every brief quotation or allusion--that would be oppressively difficult for many types of works--but "remixing" or borrowing large sections wholesale should require permission or, at the very least, clear acknowledgment of the borrowing.
When a musician remixes a song it is typically at the request of the artist or label that released the original composition; if we're following the standards of remixing, this author is still in the wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120440</id>
	<title>Good grief,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> nothing is really original anymore.  When you have a planet with a population of nearly 7 billion -- it is fairly easy for me to claim that 99.999\% of everything written, said, or done today, has been done by someone else in the past: including music.</p><p>Even mathematics is full of stories where there is more than one inventor, who claimed that they developed ideas independently.</p><p>If the offense is blatant copy-infringement, and contributes more than an insignificant impact to the copied works, then let a judge determine a financial penalty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nothing is really original anymore .
When you have a planet with a population of nearly 7 billion -- it is fairly easy for me to claim that 99.999 \ % of everything written , said , or done today , has been done by someone else in the past : including music.Even mathematics is full of stories where there is more than one inventor , who claimed that they developed ideas independently.If the offense is blatant copy-infringement , and contributes more than an insignificant impact to the copied works , then let a judge determine a financial penalty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> nothing is really original anymore.
When you have a planet with a population of nearly 7 billion -- it is fairly easy for me to claim that 99.999\% of everything written, said, or done today, has been done by someone else in the past: including music.Even mathematics is full of stories where there is more than one inventor, who claimed that they developed ideas independently.If the offense is blatant copy-infringement, and contributes more than an insignificant impact to the copied works, then let a judge determine a financial penalty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121180</id>
	<title>Re:It's a matter of degree</title>
	<author>Microlith</author>
	<datestamp>1265975640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's one thing to build on the works of others, and another thing to take parts of their work and claim them as your own. I don't think it's ever been acceptable to do that, only it's gotten significantly easier.</p><blockquote><div><p>What was acceptable for Mozart (republishing work by others as his own)</p></div></blockquote><p>But was it acceptable? He was the patron of royalty, who would likely not have entertained those who questioned him on such a subject. Would they have even know his works were lifted from others?</p><blockquote><div><p>Most of Shakespeare's plots and characters are not original.</p></div></blockquote><p>To be fair to Shakespeare, while his plots and characters were not original his plays and settings were.</p><p>Consider how people are proclaiming this girl to be prodigy, but she is being questioned now that bits of her work are found to have been lifted. Were the ability to compare information on the level we can achieve today available in Mozart's time, would he have gotten away with what he did?</p><p>And at what point does an inclusion become so obvious that "this is not my work" need not be said? I doubt even Beethoven could lay claim to "God save the King," and used it because of its cultural ubiquity.</p><p>Your comment about Disney is disingenuous, as Treasure Island is in the public domain while Toy Story is not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's one thing to build on the works of others , and another thing to take parts of their work and claim them as your own .
I do n't think it 's ever been acceptable to do that , only it 's gotten significantly easier.What was acceptable for Mozart ( republishing work by others as his own ) But was it acceptable ?
He was the patron of royalty , who would likely not have entertained those who questioned him on such a subject .
Would they have even know his works were lifted from others ? Most of Shakespeare 's plots and characters are not original.To be fair to Shakespeare , while his plots and characters were not original his plays and settings were.Consider how people are proclaiming this girl to be prodigy , but she is being questioned now that bits of her work are found to have been lifted .
Were the ability to compare information on the level we can achieve today available in Mozart 's time , would he have gotten away with what he did ? And at what point does an inclusion become so obvious that " this is not my work " need not be said ?
I doubt even Beethoven could lay claim to " God save the King , " and used it because of its cultural ubiquity.Your comment about Disney is disingenuous , as Treasure Island is in the public domain while Toy Story is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's one thing to build on the works of others, and another thing to take parts of their work and claim them as your own.
I don't think it's ever been acceptable to do that, only it's gotten significantly easier.What was acceptable for Mozart (republishing work by others as his own)But was it acceptable?
He was the patron of royalty, who would likely not have entertained those who questioned him on such a subject.
Would they have even know his works were lifted from others?Most of Shakespeare's plots and characters are not original.To be fair to Shakespeare, while his plots and characters were not original his plays and settings were.Consider how people are proclaiming this girl to be prodigy, but she is being questioned now that bits of her work are found to have been lifted.
Were the ability to compare information on the level we can achieve today available in Mozart's time, would he have gotten away with what he did?And at what point does an inclusion become so obvious that "this is not my work" need not be said?
I doubt even Beethoven could lay claim to "God save the King," and used it because of its cultural ubiquity.Your comment about Disney is disingenuous, as Treasure Island is in the public domain while Toy Story is not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122122</id>
	<title>Anti-copyright yet she's still wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265979960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe copyright should be entirely reworked to be completely against companies/corporations and a person has complete immunity. Considering publication is practically impossible without a corp of some sort... the harm to literature or otherwise would be negligible. While the appropriate freedoms to consumers and similar are highly protected.</p><p>However I think this plagiarist is in the wrong. She should be free to use samples as she wishes, without permission or royalties, so long as she attributes with citations. Sample size being something the publishers have to worry about.</p><p>The real interesting part is when you consider that she might have been young enough to have not read the applicable books to have plagiarised them. That it was original thought/content. While yes she admits to plagiarism. If she really hadnt... why should she attribute anything or owe anything to anyone?</p><p>On a side note, if I never plagiarized anything and released my book. I would put the idea out there that I had plagiarized. People would read the book over and over trying to find the plagiarism... when they do find something it would be proof positive that there's no such thing as original thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe copyright should be entirely reworked to be completely against companies/corporations and a person has complete immunity .
Considering publication is practically impossible without a corp of some sort... the harm to literature or otherwise would be negligible .
While the appropriate freedoms to consumers and similar are highly protected.However I think this plagiarist is in the wrong .
She should be free to use samples as she wishes , without permission or royalties , so long as she attributes with citations .
Sample size being something the publishers have to worry about.The real interesting part is when you consider that she might have been young enough to have not read the applicable books to have plagiarised them .
That it was original thought/content .
While yes she admits to plagiarism .
If she really hadnt... why should she attribute anything or owe anything to anyone ? On a side note , if I never plagiarized anything and released my book .
I would put the idea out there that I had plagiarized .
People would read the book over and over trying to find the plagiarism... when they do find something it would be proof positive that there 's no such thing as original thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe copyright should be entirely reworked to be completely against companies/corporations and a person has complete immunity.
Considering publication is practically impossible without a corp of some sort... the harm to literature or otherwise would be negligible.
While the appropriate freedoms to consumers and similar are highly protected.However I think this plagiarist is in the wrong.
She should be free to use samples as she wishes, without permission or royalties, so long as she attributes with citations.
Sample size being something the publishers have to worry about.The real interesting part is when you consider that she might have been young enough to have not read the applicable books to have plagiarised them.
That it was original thought/content.
While yes she admits to plagiarism.
If she really hadnt... why should she attribute anything or owe anything to anyone?On a side note, if I never plagiarized anything and released my book.
I would put the idea out there that I had plagiarized.
People would read the book over and over trying to find the plagiarism... when they do find something it would be proof positive that there's no such thing as original thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124002</id>
	<title>Cultural thing</title>
	<author>heidaro</author>
	<datestamp>1265992500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of sensible plagiarism. Plagiarism is a very cultural thing for us Westerners [especially]. In some countries [Middle East] you will find that you do not get top marks unless you copy everything your professor told you, letter to letter.

If someone makes a scientific discovery and states: "I have proven that the sky is blue". Now I am writing a paper and I want to use his research as a reference and in order to not plagiarise I have to paraphrase (I could quote but I won't in this example). So how do I do that for such a simple and short statement? "It has been proven that the heavens are azure." This decreases readability, often adds to length and decreases efficiency.

Conclusion: Plagiarism is a part of our [bullshit] Western culture and it is counter productive; referencing alone should be enough.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of sensible plagiarism .
Plagiarism is a very cultural thing for us Westerners [ especially ] .
In some countries [ Middle East ] you will find that you do not get top marks unless you copy everything your professor told you , letter to letter .
If someone makes a scientific discovery and states : " I have proven that the sky is blue " .
Now I am writing a paper and I want to use his research as a reference and in order to not plagiarise I have to paraphrase ( I could quote but I wo n't in this example ) .
So how do I do that for such a simple and short statement ?
" It has been proven that the heavens are azure .
" This decreases readability , often adds to length and decreases efficiency .
Conclusion : Plagiarism is a part of our [ bullshit ] Western culture and it is counter productive ; referencing alone should be enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of sensible plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a very cultural thing for us Westerners [especially].
In some countries [Middle East] you will find that you do not get top marks unless you copy everything your professor told you, letter to letter.
If someone makes a scientific discovery and states: "I have proven that the sky is blue".
Now I am writing a paper and I want to use his research as a reference and in order to not plagiarise I have to paraphrase (I could quote but I won't in this example).
So how do I do that for such a simple and short statement?
"It has been proven that the heavens are azure.
" This decreases readability, often adds to length and decreases efficiency.
Conclusion: Plagiarism is a part of our [bullshit] Western culture and it is counter productive; referencing alone should be enough.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121294</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>howlatthemoon</author>
	<datestamp>1265976060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is only flattering if you acknowledge the one you imitate.  It is not only the honorable thing to do, but in scholarship a necessity. It avoids sloppiness of thinking and provides linkages to the origins of the original thought.  For example I hight doubt the author of the quote "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" was a Zen Master as the person who wrote it, Charles Caleb Colton, was a 17th century English Cleric (Wikipedia). <br> <br>

While I do believe there are original thoughts, unlike Jim Jarmusch, I do believe that knowledge in our civilization advances by our building on the works of others in all aspects of the life, science and art.  There needs to be reasonable respect for IP (the incentive to create for some but still less than life+70 yrs), and even more reasonable terms of use (the incentive to make things even better). Still, when things enter the public domain, I see no less of an obligation to attribute the content to the original source. <br> <br>

Much of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing\_on\_the\_shoulders\_of\_giants" title="wikipedia.org">standing on the shoulders of giants</a> [wikipedia.org] we do may be way of inspiration, which can be hard to attribute, but it does sound like this is the case for the author in cited.  She is an unrepentant plagiarist, and deserves scorn heaped upon her.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is only flattering if you acknowledge the one you imitate .
It is not only the honorable thing to do , but in scholarship a necessity .
It avoids sloppiness of thinking and provides linkages to the origins of the original thought .
For example I hight doubt the author of the quote " Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery " was a Zen Master as the person who wrote it , Charles Caleb Colton , was a 17th century English Cleric ( Wikipedia ) .
While I do believe there are original thoughts , unlike Jim Jarmusch , I do believe that knowledge in our civilization advances by our building on the works of others in all aspects of the life , science and art .
There needs to be reasonable respect for IP ( the incentive to create for some but still less than life + 70 yrs ) , and even more reasonable terms of use ( the incentive to make things even better ) .
Still , when things enter the public domain , I see no less of an obligation to attribute the content to the original source .
Much of the standing on the shoulders of giants [ wikipedia.org ] we do may be way of inspiration , which can be hard to attribute , but it does sound like this is the case for the author in cited .
She is an unrepentant plagiarist , and deserves scorn heaped upon her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is only flattering if you acknowledge the one you imitate.
It is not only the honorable thing to do, but in scholarship a necessity.
It avoids sloppiness of thinking and provides linkages to the origins of the original thought.
For example I hight doubt the author of the quote "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" was a Zen Master as the person who wrote it, Charles Caleb Colton, was a 17th century English Cleric (Wikipedia).
While I do believe there are original thoughts, unlike Jim Jarmusch, I do believe that knowledge in our civilization advances by our building on the works of others in all aspects of the life, science and art.
There needs to be reasonable respect for IP (the incentive to create for some but still less than life+70 yrs), and even more reasonable terms of use (the incentive to make things even better).
Still, when things enter the public domain, I see no less of an obligation to attribute the content to the original source.
Much of the standing on the shoulders of giants [wikipedia.org] we do may be way of inspiration, which can be hard to attribute, but it does sound like this is the case for the author in cited.
She is an unrepentant plagiarist, and deserves scorn heaped upon her.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121200</id>
	<title>Maybe it is generational</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265975760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really consider myself part of their generation, but I couldn't care less whether someone gets compensated for a sample in a music, or a page in a book, which is ripped off. Copyright is to protect jerks from wholesale republishing my book without my permission, not to give me perpetual control over whatever words or sounds I make until the end of history. Plagiarism is if you commit something which you and your community considers dishonest, and if she is right, and she and her community do NOT consider it dishonest but rather part of the art, then who are we to quibble? Maybe I am part of that generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really consider myself part of their generation , but I could n't care less whether someone gets compensated for a sample in a music , or a page in a book , which is ripped off .
Copyright is to protect jerks from wholesale republishing my book without my permission , not to give me perpetual control over whatever words or sounds I make until the end of history .
Plagiarism is if you commit something which you and your community considers dishonest , and if she is right , and she and her community do NOT consider it dishonest but rather part of the art , then who are we to quibble ?
Maybe I am part of that generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really consider myself part of their generation, but I couldn't care less whether someone gets compensated for a sample in a music, or a page in a book, which is ripped off.
Copyright is to protect jerks from wholesale republishing my book without my permission, not to give me perpetual control over whatever words or sounds I make until the end of history.
Plagiarism is if you commit something which you and your community considers dishonest, and if she is right, and she and her community do NOT consider it dishonest but rather part of the art, then who are we to quibble?
Maybe I am part of that generation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121302</id>
	<title>yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265976120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121638</id>
	<title>Eragon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265977800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, it sounds like this really is just the next logical step though.  This "Eragon" book, also written by some precociously young author, left me with an odd feeling of it being a mix of real fantasy classics, like very direct ideas from Tolkien, Carrol, etc.  But rather than sink that 17-year-old's novel as obviously derivative and clearly unoriginal, they made it into a movie.  If I were the 17-year-old subject of this article, I'd probably think well, what the hell, why bother to hide the ball anymore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , it sounds like this really is just the next logical step though .
This " Eragon " book , also written by some precociously young author , left me with an odd feeling of it being a mix of real fantasy classics , like very direct ideas from Tolkien , Carrol , etc .
But rather than sink that 17-year-old 's novel as obviously derivative and clearly unoriginal , they made it into a movie .
If I were the 17-year-old subject of this article , I 'd probably think well , what the hell , why bother to hide the ball anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, it sounds like this really is just the next logical step though.
This "Eragon" book, also written by some precociously young author, left me with an odd feeling of it being a mix of real fantasy classics, like very direct ideas from Tolkien, Carrol, etc.
But rather than sink that 17-year-old's novel as obviously derivative and clearly unoriginal, they made it into a movie.
If I were the 17-year-old subject of this article, I'd probably think well, what the hell, why bother to hide the ball anymore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124572</id>
	<title>God's Little Toys</title>
	<author>radarsat1</author>
	<datestamp>1265998860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To those who immediately say "No", I'd just like to submit this essay by William Gibson as a talking point.</p><p><a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/gibson.html" title="wired.com">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/gibson.html</a> [wired.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To those who immediately say " No " , I 'd just like to submit this essay by William Gibson as a talking point.http : //www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/gibson.html [ wired.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To those who immediately say "No", I'd just like to submit this essay by William Gibson as a talking point.http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/gibson.html [wired.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121224</id>
	<title>Stealing isn't new in Great Literature</title>
	<author>thethirdwheel</author>
	<datestamp>1265975820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea of copyright in literature is brand spanking new.  Some of our greatest works of literature have blatant elements of "plagiarism". A significant portion of the body of Arthurian literature is straightforwardly copied, often word for word, from one source to another. Medieval authors embellish or elide where they feel it is appropriate, but they have no qualms about lifting verbatim from earlier writers.  Many commonly anthologized and academically respected english sonnets are straightforwardly copies of pre-existing italian ones.  The bible is a hodgepodge of shoplifted stories from the epic of gilgamesh and who knows how many other ancient sources.  Literature is a dialogue and a group endeavor and it has been for ages.  This isn't new, and so long as it adds value to the body of literature, it isn't bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of copyright in literature is brand spanking new .
Some of our greatest works of literature have blatant elements of " plagiarism " .
A significant portion of the body of Arthurian literature is straightforwardly copied , often word for word , from one source to another .
Medieval authors embellish or elide where they feel it is appropriate , but they have no qualms about lifting verbatim from earlier writers .
Many commonly anthologized and academically respected english sonnets are straightforwardly copies of pre-existing italian ones .
The bible is a hodgepodge of shoplifted stories from the epic of gilgamesh and who knows how many other ancient sources .
Literature is a dialogue and a group endeavor and it has been for ages .
This is n't new , and so long as it adds value to the body of literature , it is n't bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of copyright in literature is brand spanking new.
Some of our greatest works of literature have blatant elements of "plagiarism".
A significant portion of the body of Arthurian literature is straightforwardly copied, often word for word, from one source to another.
Medieval authors embellish or elide where they feel it is appropriate, but they have no qualms about lifting verbatim from earlier writers.
Many commonly anthologized and academically respected english sonnets are straightforwardly copies of pre-existing italian ones.
The bible is a hodgepodge of shoplifted stories from the epic of gilgamesh and who knows how many other ancient sources.
Literature is a dialogue and a group endeavor and it has been for ages.
This isn't new, and so long as it adds value to the body of literature, it isn't bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121168</id>
	<title>Re:Plagiarism and copyright violation</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1265975580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, this is plagiarism. I'm TAing now and if a student handed in something like this we'd fail her. No question.</p></div><p>Irrelevant.  Student honor codes quite rightly require originality (though it's less common that we'd wish), but the world isn't school.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is also a gross abuse of copyright. I'm not talking about the evil "oh this has been copyrighted for 70s years" copyright, or even using copyright for non-commercial uses. This is classic copyright violation for her own commercial use.</p></div><p>That would be the case if the new work was merely exploiting the old, lacking the creativity to make something worthwhile.  But that doesn't appear to be the case here.  Instead, it appears that the new work is substantially better and more valuable than the old, and also that a key part of the innovative ideas in the new work is related exactly to the mixing of old materials, without permission or apology, to create new value.

</p><p>Further, from a purely economic standpoint, it appears that the success of "Axolotl Roadkill" may actually be driving sales of "Strobo".  I think you'd better wait to see if the original author -- the only person who has legal standing to sue for infringement -- actually feels damaged.  It may well be that his ego is flattered and his wallet is fattened and that he has no objections whatsoever.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact that she didn't acknowledge the sources makes the whole thing all the more egregious and shows that she really probably knew what she was doing was wrong.</p></div><p>Perhaps.  Or perhaps she was just making her book an example of the mashup culture she was writing about, and recognized that calling attention to it would remove her work from that culture -- because that's not the norm there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this is plagiarism .
I 'm TAing now and if a student handed in something like this we 'd fail her .
No question.Irrelevant .
Student honor codes quite rightly require originality ( though it 's less common that we 'd wish ) , but the world is n't school.This is also a gross abuse of copyright .
I 'm not talking about the evil " oh this has been copyrighted for 70s years " copyright , or even using copyright for non-commercial uses .
This is classic copyright violation for her own commercial use.That would be the case if the new work was merely exploiting the old , lacking the creativity to make something worthwhile .
But that does n't appear to be the case here .
Instead , it appears that the new work is substantially better and more valuable than the old , and also that a key part of the innovative ideas in the new work is related exactly to the mixing of old materials , without permission or apology , to create new value .
Further , from a purely economic standpoint , it appears that the success of " Axolotl Roadkill " may actually be driving sales of " Strobo " .
I think you 'd better wait to see if the original author -- the only person who has legal standing to sue for infringement -- actually feels damaged .
It may well be that his ego is flattered and his wallet is fattened and that he has no objections whatsoever.The fact that she did n't acknowledge the sources makes the whole thing all the more egregious and shows that she really probably knew what she was doing was wrong.Perhaps .
Or perhaps she was just making her book an example of the mashup culture she was writing about , and recognized that calling attention to it would remove her work from that culture -- because that 's not the norm there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this is plagiarism.
I'm TAing now and if a student handed in something like this we'd fail her.
No question.Irrelevant.
Student honor codes quite rightly require originality (though it's less common that we'd wish), but the world isn't school.This is also a gross abuse of copyright.
I'm not talking about the evil "oh this has been copyrighted for 70s years" copyright, or even using copyright for non-commercial uses.
This is classic copyright violation for her own commercial use.That would be the case if the new work was merely exploiting the old, lacking the creativity to make something worthwhile.
But that doesn't appear to be the case here.
Instead, it appears that the new work is substantially better and more valuable than the old, and also that a key part of the innovative ideas in the new work is related exactly to the mixing of old materials, without permission or apology, to create new value.
Further, from a purely economic standpoint, it appears that the success of "Axolotl Roadkill" may actually be driving sales of "Strobo".
I think you'd better wait to see if the original author -- the only person who has legal standing to sue for infringement -- actually feels damaged.
It may well be that his ego is flattered and his wallet is fattened and that he has no objections whatsoever.The fact that she didn't acknowledge the sources makes the whole thing all the more egregious and shows that she really probably knew what she was doing was wrong.Perhaps.
Or perhaps she was just making her book an example of the mashup culture she was writing about, and recognized that calling attention to it would remove her work from that culture -- because that's not the norm there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120642</id>
	<title>This is well established, it's called "quoting"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We already have a well developed system for sampling other peoples works in literature, it's called "quoting". It ideally establishes that the material is quoted by indenting it or wrapping it in "quote" marks and you can even reference where it came from. This is not rocket science.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have a well developed system for sampling other peoples works in literature , it 's called " quoting " .
It ideally establishes that the material is quoted by indenting it or wrapping it in " quote " marks and you can even reference where it came from .
This is not rocket science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have a well developed system for sampling other peoples works in literature, it's called "quoting".
It ideally establishes that the material is quoted by indenting it or wrapping it in "quote" marks and you can even reference where it came from.
This is not rocket science.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122956</id>
	<title>Re:Whee</title>
	<author>FauxReal</author>
	<datestamp>1265984100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you talking about the "Sweet Home Alabama" melody and lyrics plus what sounds like some piano melody from Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London? First, I don't think he sampled it... not that it makes much of a difference. But if he somehow used those parts without crediting them and paying royalties without getting sued out of his shirt I would be very surprised.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you talking about the " Sweet Home Alabama " melody and lyrics plus what sounds like some piano melody from Warren Zevon 's Werewolves of London ?
First , I do n't think he sampled it... not that it makes much of a difference .
But if he somehow used those parts without crediting them and paying royalties without getting sued out of his shirt I would be very surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you talking about the "Sweet Home Alabama" melody and lyrics plus what sounds like some piano melody from Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London?
First, I don't think he sampled it... not that it makes much of a difference.
But if he somehow used those parts without crediting them and paying royalties without getting sued out of his shirt I would be very surprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31128630</id>
	<title>She doesn't have a clue about mixing&amp;sampling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266089100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first rule is, if you want respect for your creation, give respect. Give credit to your sources. Don't pretend it's all original and use "modern culture" as a cop-out when you're found out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first rule is , if you want respect for your creation , give respect .
Give credit to your sources .
Do n't pretend it 's all original and use " modern culture " as a cop-out when you 're found out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first rule is, if you want respect for your creation, give respect.
Give credit to your sources.
Don't pretend it's all original and use "modern culture" as a cop-out when you're found out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121334</id>
	<title>Open source remix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265976300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, when is someone going to make the freely downloadable opensource remix of her book then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , when is someone going to make the freely downloadable opensource remix of her book then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, when is someone going to make the freely downloadable opensource remix of her book then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121736</id>
	<title>Re:Definitely Not</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1265978220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not stealing, or anything close to it. It's building on an existing pool of literature and culture, ie. the whole point of copyright in the first place. If everyone had to start from scratch, there would never be any Progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not stealing , or anything close to it .
It 's building on an existing pool of literature and culture , ie .
the whole point of copyright in the first place .
If everyone had to start from scratch , there would never be any Progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not stealing, or anything close to it.
It's building on an existing pool of literature and culture, ie.
the whole point of copyright in the first place.
If everyone had to start from scratch, there would never be any Progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124760</id>
	<title>TS Eliot</title>
	<author>andrewagill</author>
	<datestamp>1266001080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are the hollow arguments/We are the stuffed arguments/Leaning together/Contentions filled with straw. Alas!<br>

<br>As others have noted, the modernists copied extensively from others with or without attribution.  Unfortunately for this poseur, both modernists and samplers lift well-known bits and hope the audience is savvy enough to get it either as an easter egg or an integral part of the text.  Stealing obscure mundane quotes and not acknowledging where you got them means it's no longer sampling, but plagiarism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are the hollow arguments/We are the stuffed arguments/Leaning together/Contentions filled with straw .
Alas ! As others have noted , the modernists copied extensively from others with or without attribution .
Unfortunately for this poseur , both modernists and samplers lift well-known bits and hope the audience is savvy enough to get it either as an easter egg or an integral part of the text .
Stealing obscure mundane quotes and not acknowledging where you got them means it 's no longer sampling , but plagiarism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are the hollow arguments/We are the stuffed arguments/Leaning together/Contentions filled with straw.
Alas!

As others have noted, the modernists copied extensively from others with or without attribution.
Unfortunately for this poseur, both modernists and samplers lift well-known bits and hope the audience is savvy enough to get it either as an easter egg or an integral part of the text.
Stealing obscure mundane quotes and not acknowledging where you got them means it's no longer sampling, but plagiarism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121016</id>
	<title>Is Sampling Just Weak-Kneed?</title>
	<author>pileated</author>
	<datestamp>1265975100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm happy to say that I'm of the pre-appropriation, pre-sampling, pre-plagiarism-is-just-fine generation. But this did get me thinking. Picasso redid Velazquez, see 'Las Meninas After Velazquez.' But those paintings are radically different. You can see the similarity but there's no way in the world that anyone could accuse Picasso of plagiarizing Velazquez. You might say he cannibalized him in some sort of perhaps perverse homage. But the original was just a jumping off point.</p><p>What I don't understand about appropriation art and everything that's come after it, including this somewhat ridiculous novel and its rationale, is the lack of ambition. Are people too incapable of coming up with something original? Do you just copy a more famous artist, throw in an ironic comment or two and think you have original and probably superior art to the original. It's a mystery to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm happy to say that I 'm of the pre-appropriation , pre-sampling , pre-plagiarism-is-just-fine generation .
But this did get me thinking .
Picasso redid Velazquez , see 'Las Meninas After Velazquez .
' But those paintings are radically different .
You can see the similarity but there 's no way in the world that anyone could accuse Picasso of plagiarizing Velazquez .
You might say he cannibalized him in some sort of perhaps perverse homage .
But the original was just a jumping off point.What I do n't understand about appropriation art and everything that 's come after it , including this somewhat ridiculous novel and its rationale , is the lack of ambition .
Are people too incapable of coming up with something original ?
Do you just copy a more famous artist , throw in an ironic comment or two and think you have original and probably superior art to the original .
It 's a mystery to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm happy to say that I'm of the pre-appropriation, pre-sampling, pre-plagiarism-is-just-fine generation.
But this did get me thinking.
Picasso redid Velazquez, see 'Las Meninas After Velazquez.
' But those paintings are radically different.
You can see the similarity but there's no way in the world that anyone could accuse Picasso of plagiarizing Velazquez.
You might say he cannibalized him in some sort of perhaps perverse homage.
But the original was just a jumping off point.What I don't understand about appropriation art and everything that's come after it, including this somewhat ridiculous novel and its rationale, is the lack of ambition.
Are people too incapable of coming up with something original?
Do you just copy a more famous artist, throw in an ironic comment or two and think you have original and probably superior art to the original.
It's a mystery to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31131224</id>
	<title>Re:Depends</title>
	<author>phiwum</author>
	<datestamp>1266067680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A Zen master once said, "Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery."</p>  </div><p>Charles Caleb Colton, 19th century English cleric, was a Zen master?</p><p>Or perhaps he just lifted the saw from a Zen master.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Zen master once said , " Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery .
" Charles Caleb Colton , 19th century English cleric , was a Zen master ? Or perhaps he just lifted the saw from a Zen master .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Zen master once said, "Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
"  Charles Caleb Colton, 19th century English cleric, was a Zen master?Or perhaps he just lifted the saw from a Zen master.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124610</id>
	<title>Beatles vs. Bowie vs. Zeppelin</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1265999280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.<br>Bowie/Lennon/McCartney/Page/Plant would be a kickass songwriter credit.</p><p>However, this would be more likely to invoke charges of musical sacrilege than the Dawson/Horton/Germanotta/Khayat/Nielsen/Penhaglion mashup project I've been working on.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>You're right, a 30-second bit of each just strung after the last would not be very artistic. I can, however, see something interesting happen if it was bits that added up to 30 seconds each being ordered in an unexpected manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.Bowie/Lennon/McCartney/Page/Plant would be a kickass songwriter credit.However , this would be more likely to invoke charges of musical sacrilege than the Dawson/Horton/Germanotta/Khayat/Nielsen/Penhaglion mashup project I 've been working on .
: ) You 're right , a 30-second bit of each just strung after the last would not be very artistic .
I can , however , see something interesting happen if it was bits that added up to 30 seconds each being ordered in an unexpected manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.Bowie/Lennon/McCartney/Page/Plant would be a kickass songwriter credit.However, this would be more likely to invoke charges of musical sacrilege than the Dawson/Horton/Germanotta/Khayat/Nielsen/Penhaglion mashup project I've been working on.
:)You're right, a 30-second bit of each just strung after the last would not be very artistic.
I can, however, see something interesting happen if it was bits that added up to 30 seconds each being ordered in an unexpected manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121574</id>
	<title>Re:Whee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265977500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You clearly don't know much about the history of American popular music.</p><p>Blues and folk music is all about copying other people and putting your own spin on it. When people say rock &amp; roll "ripped off" the blues, they're talking out of their ass, because all those old blues guys "ripped off" each other as well.</p><p>Sampling is just a new method of achieving the same goal. Rap is the new folk music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You clearly do n't know much about the history of American popular music.Blues and folk music is all about copying other people and putting your own spin on it .
When people say rock &amp; roll " ripped off " the blues , they 're talking out of their ass , because all those old blues guys " ripped off " each other as well.Sampling is just a new method of achieving the same goal .
Rap is the new folk music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You clearly don't know much about the history of American popular music.Blues and folk music is all about copying other people and putting your own spin on it.
When people say rock &amp; roll "ripped off" the blues, they're talking out of their ass, because all those old blues guys "ripped off" each other as well.Sampling is just a new method of achieving the same goal.
Rap is the new folk music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120378</id>
	<title>wait, what's the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265972940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Helene Hegemann's first book has been moving up the best-seller list in<br>Germany and is a finalist for a major book prize. While originally this<br>was notable because Hegemann is only 17 and this is her first book, and<br>so earned praise as a prodigy, what's interesting now about this story<br>is that she has been caught plagiarizing many passages in the book.<br>Amazingly, she has not denied it, but instead claims there is nothing<br>wrong with it. She claims that she is part of a new generation that has<br><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/world/europe/12germany.html" title="nytimes.com">grown up with mixing and sampling in all media</a> [nytimes.com], including music and art,<br>and this is legitimate in modern culture. Have we entered a new era where<br>plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal? Is this the<br>ultimate in cynicism, or is it simply a brash attempt to get away with<br>something now that she's been caught? Is her claim to legitimacy<br>compromised by the fact that she only admitted it after it was<br>discovered by someone else? And finally, if 'sampling' is not acceptable<br>in literature, is this reason to rethink the legitimacy of musical<br>sampling?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Helene Hegemann 's first book has been moving up the best-seller list inGermany and is a finalist for a major book prize .
While originally thiswas notable because Hegemann is only 17 and this is her first book , andso earned praise as a prodigy , what 's interesting now about this storyis that she has been caught plagiarizing many passages in the book.Amazingly , she has not denied it , but instead claims there is nothingwrong with it .
She claims that she is part of a new generation that hasgrown up with mixing and sampling in all media [ nytimes.com ] , including music and art,and this is legitimate in modern culture .
Have we entered a new era whereplagiarism is not just tolerated , but seen as normal ?
Is this theultimate in cynicism , or is it simply a brash attempt to get away withsomething now that she 's been caught ?
Is her claim to legitimacycompromised by the fact that she only admitted it after it wasdiscovered by someone else ?
And finally , if 'sampling ' is not acceptablein literature , is this reason to rethink the legitimacy of musicalsampling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Helene Hegemann's first book has been moving up the best-seller list inGermany and is a finalist for a major book prize.
While originally thiswas notable because Hegemann is only 17 and this is her first book, andso earned praise as a prodigy, what's interesting now about this storyis that she has been caught plagiarizing many passages in the book.Amazingly, she has not denied it, but instead claims there is nothingwrong with it.
She claims that she is part of a new generation that hasgrown up with mixing and sampling in all media [nytimes.com], including music and art,and this is legitimate in modern culture.
Have we entered a new era whereplagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?
Is this theultimate in cynicism, or is it simply a brash attempt to get away withsomething now that she's been caught?
Is her claim to legitimacycompromised by the fact that she only admitted it after it wasdiscovered by someone else?
And finally, if 'sampling' is not acceptablein literature, is this reason to rethink the legitimacy of musicalsampling?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121916</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts on this</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1265979000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You made it further in than me.  The sheer thickness of that work is daunting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You made it further in than me .
The sheer thickness of that work is daunting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You made it further in than me.
The sheer thickness of that work is daunting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123086</id>
	<title>Re:Definitely Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265984940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't care if it's "a new generation". In the past, "new generations" did not claim they could rob or steal just because they feel like it, either.</p></div><p>Yes they did, that's precisely what the communists did, claimed they could take the property from those who possessed it and redistribute it as they saw fit. Socialism is still regarded as theft in principle by some people. The establishment of the property rights that socialism destroys was done at the expense of the previous system which was absolute power of monarchs, which defined everything (and everyone) as property of the king. Kings generally rose by forceful acquisition of property previously held by tribes, clans etc.</p><p>Redefining property rights and acquiring them against the wishes of the previous owners is the historical norm. That's not to say it's always right or a good idea, but it's certainly nothing new.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if it 's " a new generation " .
In the past , " new generations " did not claim they could rob or steal just because they feel like it , either.Yes they did , that 's precisely what the communists did , claimed they could take the property from those who possessed it and redistribute it as they saw fit .
Socialism is still regarded as theft in principle by some people .
The establishment of the property rights that socialism destroys was done at the expense of the previous system which was absolute power of monarchs , which defined everything ( and everyone ) as property of the king .
Kings generally rose by forceful acquisition of property previously held by tribes , clans etc.Redefining property rights and acquiring them against the wishes of the previous owners is the historical norm .
That 's not to say it 's always right or a good idea , but it 's certainly nothing new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if it's "a new generation".
In the past, "new generations" did not claim they could rob or steal just because they feel like it, either.Yes they did, that's precisely what the communists did, claimed they could take the property from those who possessed it and redistribute it as they saw fit.
Socialism is still regarded as theft in principle by some people.
The establishment of the property rights that socialism destroys was done at the expense of the previous system which was absolute power of monarchs, which defined everything (and everyone) as property of the king.
Kings generally rose by forceful acquisition of property previously held by tribes, clans etc.Redefining property rights and acquiring them against the wishes of the previous owners is the historical norm.
That's not to say it's always right or a good idea, but it's certainly nothing new.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124088</id>
	<title>its been true all along...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265993340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." - Einstein</p><p>its just that this generation isn't pressured into hiding it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources .
" - Einsteinits just that this generation is n't pressured into hiding it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
" - Einsteinits just that this generation isn't pressured into hiding it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120522</id>
	<title>Hideous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, I'm going to take 30 seconds of a Bowie song, 30 seconds of a Beatles song, and 30 seconds of a Led Zeppelin song, string them together, and call it a new work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , I 'm going to take 30 seconds of a Bowie song , 30 seconds of a Beatles song , and 30 seconds of a Led Zeppelin song , string them together , and call it a new work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, I'm going to take 30 seconds of a Bowie song, 30 seconds of a Beatles song, and 30 seconds of a Led Zeppelin song, string them together, and call it a new work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120286</id>
	<title>I Just Can't Agree With This</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1265972700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

First off, I'm 27.  No clue if I'm therefore a member of her generation or not.  But anyway, I do recognize a move towards a slough of progressive distribution models of information.  I think the public domain is underrated and I would like to see copyright length <i>dialed down</i> a year or thirty.  I don't think it should be completely abolished anytime in the near future.  <br> <br>

I also feel like writers should be rewarded with incentives for their work.  If her anything goes usage attitude was applied to me I would simply make a character with my name and pick up all my favorite sci-fi books and write glue to transport the character from one favorite scene to another in each of the books.  I'd publish it and get all the proceeds.  But that wouldn't be fair if all I did was write crappy glue to string the stories together.  I should make pennies on the sale with the rest of the cash appropriately divided up to the real authors who did the real writing.  I'm not a sampling artist but the ones that do get permission in music I believe settle up with the owner of that copyrighted work first.  <br> <br>

I guess she lives in Germany so things might go differently for her.  But in the United States, if you commit a crime as an act of art, you are still charged for the crime.  Murder someone and string their body parts on a Christmas tree to represent the commercialization of Christmas?  You're going to be tried for murder.  <br> <br>

Something of curious note to me is that she's 17.  In our code of law, I believe her record would be expunged when she's 18, not sure how it works in Germany.  So maybe she's taking this hit now to generate publicity knowing full well it won't stick on her.  Who knows?  I think it's a shame that she didn't get permission and I hope the other authors are given <i>a reasonable</i> royalty rate on her sales.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , I 'm 27 .
No clue if I 'm therefore a member of her generation or not .
But anyway , I do recognize a move towards a slough of progressive distribution models of information .
I think the public domain is underrated and I would like to see copyright length dialed down a year or thirty .
I do n't think it should be completely abolished anytime in the near future .
I also feel like writers should be rewarded with incentives for their work .
If her anything goes usage attitude was applied to me I would simply make a character with my name and pick up all my favorite sci-fi books and write glue to transport the character from one favorite scene to another in each of the books .
I 'd publish it and get all the proceeds .
But that would n't be fair if all I did was write crappy glue to string the stories together .
I should make pennies on the sale with the rest of the cash appropriately divided up to the real authors who did the real writing .
I 'm not a sampling artist but the ones that do get permission in music I believe settle up with the owner of that copyrighted work first .
I guess she lives in Germany so things might go differently for her .
But in the United States , if you commit a crime as an act of art , you are still charged for the crime .
Murder someone and string their body parts on a Christmas tree to represent the commercialization of Christmas ?
You 're going to be tried for murder .
Something of curious note to me is that she 's 17 .
In our code of law , I believe her record would be expunged when she 's 18 , not sure how it works in Germany .
So maybe she 's taking this hit now to generate publicity knowing full well it wo n't stick on her .
Who knows ?
I think it 's a shame that she did n't get permission and I hope the other authors are given a reasonable royalty rate on her sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

First off, I'm 27.
No clue if I'm therefore a member of her generation or not.
But anyway, I do recognize a move towards a slough of progressive distribution models of information.
I think the public domain is underrated and I would like to see copyright length dialed down a year or thirty.
I don't think it should be completely abolished anytime in the near future.
I also feel like writers should be rewarded with incentives for their work.
If her anything goes usage attitude was applied to me I would simply make a character with my name and pick up all my favorite sci-fi books and write glue to transport the character from one favorite scene to another in each of the books.
I'd publish it and get all the proceeds.
But that wouldn't be fair if all I did was write crappy glue to string the stories together.
I should make pennies on the sale with the rest of the cash appropriately divided up to the real authors who did the real writing.
I'm not a sampling artist but the ones that do get permission in music I believe settle up with the owner of that copyrighted work first.
I guess she lives in Germany so things might go differently for her.
But in the United States, if you commit a crime as an act of art, you are still charged for the crime.
Murder someone and string their body parts on a Christmas tree to represent the commercialization of Christmas?
You're going to be tried for murder.
Something of curious note to me is that she's 17.
In our code of law, I believe her record would be expunged when she's 18, not sure how it works in Germany.
So maybe she's taking this hit now to generate publicity knowing full well it won't stick on her.
Who knows?
I think it's a shame that she didn't get permission and I hope the other authors are given a reasonable royalty rate on her sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121926</id>
	<title>Re:Whee</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1265979060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that usually done with the consent of the original writer and suitable license payments?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that usually done with the consent of the original writer and suitable license payments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that usually done with the consent of the original writer and suitable license payments?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121124</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265975400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a big difference between sampled audio and most sampled text. With audio clips you're (usually) hearing the exact same content pulled directly from the source. This makes it easier to recognize. But, when "sampling" text, more often this context is removed. All that remains are the words themselves, without any original formatting style as added context. A more legitimate approach to text sampling would be to scan the original text, cut it out, and place it in your new work as a block. Same effect as putting something in quotes, only better looking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a big difference between sampled audio and most sampled text .
With audio clips you 're ( usually ) hearing the exact same content pulled directly from the source .
This makes it easier to recognize .
But , when " sampling " text , more often this context is removed .
All that remains are the words themselves , without any original formatting style as added context .
A more legitimate approach to text sampling would be to scan the original text , cut it out , and place it in your new work as a block .
Same effect as putting something in quotes , only better looking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a big difference between sampled audio and most sampled text.
With audio clips you're (usually) hearing the exact same content pulled directly from the source.
This makes it easier to recognize.
But, when "sampling" text, more often this context is removed.
All that remains are the words themselves, without any original formatting style as added context.
A more legitimate approach to text sampling would be to scan the original text, cut it out, and place it in your new work as a block.
Same effect as putting something in quotes, only better looking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032</id>
	<title>The most interesting sentence in the article</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1265975100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Referring to the German Amazon page about the book, the Times article said 'Under the heading &ldquo;Customers who bought this item also bought&rdquo; was &ldquo;Strobo&rdquo; by Airen'.  I think that raises some interesting questions.  Artistic questions aside, can you argue that plagiarism damages the author of the plagiarized work if it increases sales?

</p><p>There are two common theories for why we have copyright.  I think the more correct one (at least for US copyright law -- yes, I realize that these events are playing out in Germany, under German law) is that copyright exists in order to promote creativity, and on that basis it's very hard to argue that "mashup" works that actually do create something new and interesting by combining pieces of older stuff don't satisfy that goal just as well as purely original works.  And in this case, no one appears to be arguing that this young woman is simply riding the coattails of Airen.

</p><p>The other theory is the economic one:  that copyright exists so that authors get paid.  Although we'd need to see real numbers to know for sure, the fact that sales of "Axolotl Roadkill" seems to be driving increased sales of "Strobo" seems to indicate that this usage of text from Strobo satisfies that version of copyright rationale as well.  It'll be interesting to see what Airen says about the use of his work.  Does he feel ripped off, or flattered?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Referring to the German Amazon page about the book , the Times article said 'Under the heading    Customers who bought this item also bought    was    Strobo    by Airen' .
I think that raises some interesting questions .
Artistic questions aside , can you argue that plagiarism damages the author of the plagiarized work if it increases sales ?
There are two common theories for why we have copyright .
I think the more correct one ( at least for US copyright law -- yes , I realize that these events are playing out in Germany , under German law ) is that copyright exists in order to promote creativity , and on that basis it 's very hard to argue that " mashup " works that actually do create something new and interesting by combining pieces of older stuff do n't satisfy that goal just as well as purely original works .
And in this case , no one appears to be arguing that this young woman is simply riding the coattails of Airen .
The other theory is the economic one : that copyright exists so that authors get paid .
Although we 'd need to see real numbers to know for sure , the fact that sales of " Axolotl Roadkill " seems to be driving increased sales of " Strobo " seems to indicate that this usage of text from Strobo satisfies that version of copyright rationale as well .
It 'll be interesting to see what Airen says about the use of his work .
Does he feel ripped off , or flattered ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Referring to the German Amazon page about the book, the Times article said 'Under the heading “Customers who bought this item also bought” was “Strobo” by Airen'.
I think that raises some interesting questions.
Artistic questions aside, can you argue that plagiarism damages the author of the plagiarized work if it increases sales?
There are two common theories for why we have copyright.
I think the more correct one (at least for US copyright law -- yes, I realize that these events are playing out in Germany, under German law) is that copyright exists in order to promote creativity, and on that basis it's very hard to argue that "mashup" works that actually do create something new and interesting by combining pieces of older stuff don't satisfy that goal just as well as purely original works.
And in this case, no one appears to be arguing that this young woman is simply riding the coattails of Airen.
The other theory is the economic one:  that copyright exists so that authors get paid.
Although we'd need to see real numbers to know for sure, the fact that sales of "Axolotl Roadkill" seems to be driving increased sales of "Strobo" seems to indicate that this usage of text from Strobo satisfies that version of copyright rationale as well.
It'll be interesting to see what Airen says about the use of his work.
Does he feel ripped off, or flattered?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121190</id>
	<title>Merrit of final work vs process to get there</title>
	<author>waTR</author>
	<datestamp>1265975700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please stop following the outdated property rights model. We have the tools and technology to start the shift towards the Chicago school's economic model to intellectual property.</p><p>Society needs a re-focusing of the driver for innovation. People should still be paid for their work, however, it should not be a pay-per-use model of intellectual property. There is a good example of this in Canada with the CD tax. When you purchase the recordable media you pay a tax that goes to artists for their work. In exchange you acquire the right to make copies of your music CDs. This is a good beginning, but there is no desire to develop it as it would take the power away from the publishers, and give it back to the artists. Publishers would no longer be the middle man that has made them so rich. Intellectual property laws are no longer appropriate for the new creative landscape. However, they don't need to change, they need to be completely removed and re-thought from scratch. Existing laws and any potential changes will never succeed in what people imagine they exist to achieve: artistic freedom through compensation for efforts expended.</p><p>The emphasis of intellectual property rights are on the individual and on the "I made it" or "I invented it". The whole founding principle behind copyright was in-fact to give authors the right to control who publishes their book. It was a direct attack on the way too powerful publishing industry at the time (see context of Statute of Anne UK).</p><p>Since that time there has also been the issue of attribution. This was mostly due to the fact that you needed to attribute the work in order to claim copyright and thereby control the work (see publisher battle in previous paragraph).</p><p>Lastly, there has been an element of profit introduced, more so recently, but also in the past. Don't forget that before there was the global market place and the invention of the printers people earned their living (or death in the case of Aristotle), through recognition for their works. These days people are no longer making a "living", but rather making their fortunes via the same. Now, there is nothing wrong with this. However, when it becomes the driving force as opposed to contributing to the story of humanity, then there is a problem. This is the great shift that intellectual property laws embrace and were engineered to contribute to from the beginning (accidentally or not).</p><p>These days there has been a re-emergence of publishers as an enemy to the artist, and there is a great need for a new "Statute of Anne" to address this. Creators need to start concentrating on the contribution to the humanity, rather than getting bogged down in who should gets a cut. It is only when this shift occurs will humanity be able to shed their shackles of intellectual mediocrity. It is only when there is less concern for profits and more for intangible value added to society will we see some great innovation.</p><p>Learn about the Chicago economic theory regarding intellectual property rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop following the outdated property rights model .
We have the tools and technology to start the shift towards the Chicago school 's economic model to intellectual property.Society needs a re-focusing of the driver for innovation .
People should still be paid for their work , however , it should not be a pay-per-use model of intellectual property .
There is a good example of this in Canada with the CD tax .
When you purchase the recordable media you pay a tax that goes to artists for their work .
In exchange you acquire the right to make copies of your music CDs .
This is a good beginning , but there is no desire to develop it as it would take the power away from the publishers , and give it back to the artists .
Publishers would no longer be the middle man that has made them so rich .
Intellectual property laws are no longer appropriate for the new creative landscape .
However , they do n't need to change , they need to be completely removed and re-thought from scratch .
Existing laws and any potential changes will never succeed in what people imagine they exist to achieve : artistic freedom through compensation for efforts expended.The emphasis of intellectual property rights are on the individual and on the " I made it " or " I invented it " .
The whole founding principle behind copyright was in-fact to give authors the right to control who publishes their book .
It was a direct attack on the way too powerful publishing industry at the time ( see context of Statute of Anne UK ) .Since that time there has also been the issue of attribution .
This was mostly due to the fact that you needed to attribute the work in order to claim copyright and thereby control the work ( see publisher battle in previous paragraph ) .Lastly , there has been an element of profit introduced , more so recently , but also in the past .
Do n't forget that before there was the global market place and the invention of the printers people earned their living ( or death in the case of Aristotle ) , through recognition for their works .
These days people are no longer making a " living " , but rather making their fortunes via the same .
Now , there is nothing wrong with this .
However , when it becomes the driving force as opposed to contributing to the story of humanity , then there is a problem .
This is the great shift that intellectual property laws embrace and were engineered to contribute to from the beginning ( accidentally or not ) .These days there has been a re-emergence of publishers as an enemy to the artist , and there is a great need for a new " Statute of Anne " to address this .
Creators need to start concentrating on the contribution to the humanity , rather than getting bogged down in who should gets a cut .
It is only when this shift occurs will humanity be able to shed their shackles of intellectual mediocrity .
It is only when there is less concern for profits and more for intangible value added to society will we see some great innovation.Learn about the Chicago economic theory regarding intellectual property rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop following the outdated property rights model.
We have the tools and technology to start the shift towards the Chicago school's economic model to intellectual property.Society needs a re-focusing of the driver for innovation.
People should still be paid for their work, however, it should not be a pay-per-use model of intellectual property.
There is a good example of this in Canada with the CD tax.
When you purchase the recordable media you pay a tax that goes to artists for their work.
In exchange you acquire the right to make copies of your music CDs.
This is a good beginning, but there is no desire to develop it as it would take the power away from the publishers, and give it back to the artists.
Publishers would no longer be the middle man that has made them so rich.
Intellectual property laws are no longer appropriate for the new creative landscape.
However, they don't need to change, they need to be completely removed and re-thought from scratch.
Existing laws and any potential changes will never succeed in what people imagine they exist to achieve: artistic freedom through compensation for efforts expended.The emphasis of intellectual property rights are on the individual and on the "I made it" or "I invented it".
The whole founding principle behind copyright was in-fact to give authors the right to control who publishes their book.
It was a direct attack on the way too powerful publishing industry at the time (see context of Statute of Anne UK).Since that time there has also been the issue of attribution.
This was mostly due to the fact that you needed to attribute the work in order to claim copyright and thereby control the work (see publisher battle in previous paragraph).Lastly, there has been an element of profit introduced, more so recently, but also in the past.
Don't forget that before there was the global market place and the invention of the printers people earned their living (or death in the case of Aristotle), through recognition for their works.
These days people are no longer making a "living", but rather making their fortunes via the same.
Now, there is nothing wrong with this.
However, when it becomes the driving force as opposed to contributing to the story of humanity, then there is a problem.
This is the great shift that intellectual property laws embrace and were engineered to contribute to from the beginning (accidentally or not).These days there has been a re-emergence of publishers as an enemy to the artist, and there is a great need for a new "Statute of Anne" to address this.
Creators need to start concentrating on the contribution to the humanity, rather than getting bogged down in who should gets a cut.
It is only when this shift occurs will humanity be able to shed their shackles of intellectual mediocrity.
It is only when there is less concern for profits and more for intangible value added to society will we see some great innovation.Learn about the Chicago economic theory regarding intellectual property rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120292</id>
	<title>Sampling Your Dinner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265972700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, you eat a delicious steak dinner.  Then I'll take a steak knife, carve a sirloin off your body, and enjoy a deliciously sampled steak dinner.  Like secondhand smoke, but entirely voluntary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you eat a delicious steak dinner .
Then I 'll take a steak knife , carve a sirloin off your body , and enjoy a deliciously sampled steak dinner .
Like secondhand smoke , but entirely voluntary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, you eat a delicious steak dinner.
Then I'll take a steak knife, carve a sirloin off your body, and enjoy a deliciously sampled steak dinner.
Like secondhand smoke, but entirely voluntary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122236</id>
	<title>Damn!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1265980440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean I can no longer start all my novels with the phrase "It was a dark and stormy night..."?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean I can no longer start all my novels with the phrase " It was a dark and stormy night... " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean I can no longer start all my novels with the phrase "It was a dark and stormy night..."?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31126160</id>
	<title>Citations Needed</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1266068580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If she doesn't cite and references her sources then it is plagiarism and wrong. There was no original thought in her head, just the echos of other people's creativity. She is no artist. She is merely a thief.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If she does n't cite and references her sources then it is plagiarism and wrong .
There was no original thought in her head , just the echos of other people 's creativity .
She is no artist .
She is merely a thief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If she doesn't cite and references her sources then it is plagiarism and wrong.
There was no original thought in her head, just the echos of other people's creativity.
She is no artist.
She is merely a thief.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121532</id>
	<title>Re:The most interesting sentence in the article</title>
	<author>Seraphim\_72</author>
	<datestamp>1265977380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine the scenario where you walk up to someone and kick them in the butt and then hand them a hundred dollar bill. Now had you asked ahead of time I know any number of people that would say sure go ahead (unless you were an NFL field goal kicker) but doing it without asking is just wrong regardless of the amount of money the person makes from it. This is that same situation. The same sort of thing came up with the guy who wanted to do a sequel to Catcher in the Rye. I am sure Salinger would have made a great deal of money tangentially from that book being created, but they are his characters and story and he said no. Airen was given no choice at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine the scenario where you walk up to someone and kick them in the butt and then hand them a hundred dollar bill .
Now had you asked ahead of time I know any number of people that would say sure go ahead ( unless you were an NFL field goal kicker ) but doing it without asking is just wrong regardless of the amount of money the person makes from it .
This is that same situation .
The same sort of thing came up with the guy who wanted to do a sequel to Catcher in the Rye .
I am sure Salinger would have made a great deal of money tangentially from that book being created , but they are his characters and story and he said no .
Airen was given no choice at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine the scenario where you walk up to someone and kick them in the butt and then hand them a hundred dollar bill.
Now had you asked ahead of time I know any number of people that would say sure go ahead (unless you were an NFL field goal kicker) but doing it without asking is just wrong regardless of the amount of money the person makes from it.
This is that same situation.
The same sort of thing came up with the guy who wanted to do a sequel to Catcher in the Rye.
I am sure Salinger would have made a great deal of money tangentially from that book being created, but they are his characters and story and he said no.
Airen was given no choice at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123306</id>
	<title>Re:The most interesting sentence in the article</title>
	<author>Beryllium Sphere(tm)</author>
	<datestamp>1265986440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Does he feel ripped off, or flattered?</p><p>"Royalties are the sincerest form of flattery".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Does he feel ripped off , or flattered ?
" Royalties are the sincerest form of flattery " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Does he feel ripped off, or flattered?
"Royalties are the sincerest form of flattery".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120882</id>
	<title>Re:Whee</title>
	<author>dougisfunny</author>
	<datestamp>1265974620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How bout Weird Al?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How bout Weird Al ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How bout Weird Al?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121290</id>
	<title>Re:Definitely Not</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1265976060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't care if it's "a new generation". In the past, "new generations" did not claim they could rob or steal just because they feel like it, either.</p> </div><p>Got an music on your iPod that you didn't pay for? Oh, right, that's different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if it 's " a new generation " .
In the past , " new generations " did not claim they could rob or steal just because they feel like it , either .
Got an music on your iPod that you did n't pay for ?
Oh , right , that 's different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if it's "a new generation".
In the past, "new generations" did not claim they could rob or steal just because they feel like it, either.
Got an music on your iPod that you didn't pay for?
Oh, right, that's different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122880</id>
	<title>It's all in the way you market it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265983620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an unimportant event in the litterature world. Best sellers don't imply quality and I don't see how she is a prodigy.<br>I was a bookworm during highschool and still read quite often but never heard of this woman and I'm pretty sure I will soon forget her name.</p><p>Well, of course intertextuality is a major side of writing, but this is not what's the news about...besides it's more "olds" than news. Plagiariazing, quoting, imitations and such are as old as litterature itself (in fact, it's even true about old oral traditions, such as celtics and nordic ones), so I suspect she is only using the numeric era as an excuse. That, or being cynic. Reminds me of some Dilbert comics when it's all in how you justify stealing ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an unimportant event in the litterature world .
Best sellers do n't imply quality and I do n't see how she is a prodigy.I was a bookworm during highschool and still read quite often but never heard of this woman and I 'm pretty sure I will soon forget her name.Well , of course intertextuality is a major side of writing , but this is not what 's the news about...besides it 's more " olds " than news .
Plagiariazing , quoting , imitations and such are as old as litterature itself ( in fact , it 's even true about old oral traditions , such as celtics and nordic ones ) , so I suspect she is only using the numeric era as an excuse .
That , or being cynic .
Reminds me of some Dilbert comics when it 's all in how you justify stealing ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an unimportant event in the litterature world.
Best sellers don't imply quality and I don't see how she is a prodigy.I was a bookworm during highschool and still read quite often but never heard of this woman and I'm pretty sure I will soon forget her name.Well, of course intertextuality is a major side of writing, but this is not what's the news about...besides it's more "olds" than news.
Plagiariazing, quoting, imitations and such are as old as litterature itself (in fact, it's even true about old oral traditions, such as celtics and nordic ones), so I suspect she is only using the numeric era as an excuse.
That, or being cynic.
Reminds me of some Dilbert comics when it's all in how you justify stealing ideas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124032</id>
	<title>Re:Definitely Not</title>
	<author>dwye</author>
	<datestamp>1265992860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If they don't like the copyright laws,<br>&gt; then get them changed to something more reasonable</p><p>Copyright doesn't matter to plagiarism.  If someone published the Illiad (or even a fresh translation thereof) and claimed it as their own poem, they would be guilty of plagiarism even though the original work has always been out of copyright.</p><p>Bringing up copyright is just a red herring to obscure the real issues of her plagiarism.  Any copyright infringement claims can be settled in court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If they do n't like the copyright laws , &gt; then get them changed to something more reasonableCopyright does n't matter to plagiarism .
If someone published the Illiad ( or even a fresh translation thereof ) and claimed it as their own poem , they would be guilty of plagiarism even though the original work has always been out of copyright.Bringing up copyright is just a red herring to obscure the real issues of her plagiarism .
Any copyright infringement claims can be settled in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If they don't like the copyright laws,&gt; then get them changed to something more reasonableCopyright doesn't matter to plagiarism.
If someone published the Illiad (or even a fresh translation thereof) and claimed it as their own poem, they would be guilty of plagiarism even though the original work has always been out of copyright.Bringing up copyright is just a red herring to obscure the real issues of her plagiarism.
Any copyright infringement claims can be settled in court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121428</id>
	<title>2 rules of copying</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1265976780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Be transparent.  If it's not obvious where you are copying from, ad a "thanks to" or "credits" page or bibliography.</p><p>2a) Respect social norms or be up front if you are deliberately disrespecting them, say, as a protest.</p><p>2b) Respect the law, in this case, copyright law.</p><p>Alex Haley of <i>Roots</i> fame learned this the hard way, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold\_Courlander&amp;oldid=334148027#Roots\_and\_the\_issue\_of\_plagiarism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Harold\_Courlander#Roots and the issue of plagiarism</a> [wikipedia.org] and its references for more details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Be transparent .
If it 's not obvious where you are copying from , ad a " thanks to " or " credits " page or bibliography.2a ) Respect social norms or be up front if you are deliberately disrespecting them , say , as a protest.2b ) Respect the law , in this case , copyright law.Alex Haley of Roots fame learned this the hard way , see Wikipedia : Harold \ _Courlander # Roots and the issue of plagiarism [ wikipedia.org ] and its references for more details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Be transparent.
If it's not obvious where you are copying from, ad a "thanks to" or "credits" page or bibliography.2a) Respect social norms or be up front if you are deliberately disrespecting them, say, as a protest.2b) Respect the law, in this case, copyright law.Alex Haley of Roots fame learned this the hard way, see Wikipedia: Harold\_Courlander#Roots and the issue of plagiarism [wikipedia.org] and its references for more details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120730</id>
	<title>Well, it isn't really sampling</title>
	<author>novakom</author>
	<datestamp>1265974140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a key difference here is in music sampling, you generally take a beat or a riff or something and then do something with it to make it your own.  Your average sampled song these days is not just clips of different songs strung together, it tends to be different components of different songs combined together in some (relatively) new way.  Whereas it isn't like you can sample the "beat" of a book, fiction or non-fiction.  What she did is like splicing 3 songs together without modifying them at all; that, I'm sure, wouldn't be considering sampling, more ripping off.  So at first blush no, not really cool.</p><p>With that said, all literature borrows, more or less, from things that came before - various insights, ideas, subplots, writing styles, etc.  The fact that this girl recombined existing pieces of literature to create something more or less new is, abstractly at least, close to how any book is written.  The difference is that she was just more blatant about it.  I don't think we can deny the fact that recombination of existing work (direct or indirect) is a common (if not dominant) method for creating new art-of any medium-these days, and as long as she only claims credit for the recombination, not the source material, then I can't really fault her or the method.  You can knock her for not being creative and original, but that's like complaining a clip show (see:VH1) isn't creative or original.  It's not, but it's entertaining, it can be commercially viable, and the combination does tend to bring to light ideas that might not have been obvious prior to composing the elements.</p><p>Regardless, the key point is if she (or anyone like her) claims credit for the original elements.  If so, that's not cool.  If not, then it's nothing new and I don't particularly care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a key difference here is in music sampling , you generally take a beat or a riff or something and then do something with it to make it your own .
Your average sampled song these days is not just clips of different songs strung together , it tends to be different components of different songs combined together in some ( relatively ) new way .
Whereas it is n't like you can sample the " beat " of a book , fiction or non-fiction .
What she did is like splicing 3 songs together without modifying them at all ; that , I 'm sure , would n't be considering sampling , more ripping off .
So at first blush no , not really cool.With that said , all literature borrows , more or less , from things that came before - various insights , ideas , subplots , writing styles , etc .
The fact that this girl recombined existing pieces of literature to create something more or less new is , abstractly at least , close to how any book is written .
The difference is that she was just more blatant about it .
I do n't think we can deny the fact that recombination of existing work ( direct or indirect ) is a common ( if not dominant ) method for creating new art-of any medium-these days , and as long as she only claims credit for the recombination , not the source material , then I ca n't really fault her or the method .
You can knock her for not being creative and original , but that 's like complaining a clip show ( see : VH1 ) is n't creative or original .
It 's not , but it 's entertaining , it can be commercially viable , and the combination does tend to bring to light ideas that might not have been obvious prior to composing the elements.Regardless , the key point is if she ( or anyone like her ) claims credit for the original elements .
If so , that 's not cool .
If not , then it 's nothing new and I do n't particularly care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a key difference here is in music sampling, you generally take a beat or a riff or something and then do something with it to make it your own.
Your average sampled song these days is not just clips of different songs strung together, it tends to be different components of different songs combined together in some (relatively) new way.
Whereas it isn't like you can sample the "beat" of a book, fiction or non-fiction.
What she did is like splicing 3 songs together without modifying them at all; that, I'm sure, wouldn't be considering sampling, more ripping off.
So at first blush no, not really cool.With that said, all literature borrows, more or less, from things that came before - various insights, ideas, subplots, writing styles, etc.
The fact that this girl recombined existing pieces of literature to create something more or less new is, abstractly at least, close to how any book is written.
The difference is that she was just more blatant about it.
I don't think we can deny the fact that recombination of existing work (direct or indirect) is a common (if not dominant) method for creating new art-of any medium-these days, and as long as she only claims credit for the recombination, not the source material, then I can't really fault her or the method.
You can knock her for not being creative and original, but that's like complaining a clip show (see:VH1) isn't creative or original.
It's not, but it's entertaining, it can be commercially viable, and the combination does tend to bring to light ideas that might not have been obvious prior to composing the elements.Regardless, the key point is if she (or anyone like her) claims credit for the original elements.
If so, that's not cool.
If not, then it's nothing new and I don't particularly care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121964</id>
	<title>Re:Definitely Not</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1265979240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if I did, that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (but since you asked, the answer is no, because I don't even own an mp3 player right now).
<br> <br>
If you want to draw a parallel to the situation being discussed, you should ask if I am getting paid by a nightclub to DJ mashups that "borrow" a little too much from the original artists, and calling it my own. And no, I'm not doing that, either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if I did , that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand ( but since you asked , the answer is no , because I do n't even own an mp3 player right now ) .
If you want to draw a parallel to the situation being discussed , you should ask if I am getting paid by a nightclub to DJ mashups that " borrow " a little too much from the original artists , and calling it my own .
And no , I 'm not doing that , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if I did, that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (but since you asked, the answer is no, because I don't even own an mp3 player right now).
If you want to draw a parallel to the situation being discussed, you should ask if I am getting paid by a nightclub to DJ mashups that "borrow" a little too much from the original artists, and calling it my own.
And no, I'm not doing that, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122152</id>
	<title>What a softball</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265980080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it is legitimate.  It shouldn't be punished, but you do not deserve plaudits for remixing.  Original work will always be more noteworthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is legitimate .
It should n't be punished , but you do not deserve plaudits for remixing .
Original work will always be more noteworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it is legitimate.
It shouldn't be punished, but you do not deserve plaudits for remixing.
Original work will always be more noteworthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124180</id>
	<title>Allusion vs Plagiarism</title>
	<author>bunge</author>
	<datestamp>1265994420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a fan of the practice of alluding to other well know literature.  I think it is a great way to communicate complex ideas efficiently and capture big thoughts and ideas easily.  Who doesn't know what 30 pieces of silver signifies?  I love the statement "we are standing on the shoulders of giants".  Such devices make progress in literature much more possible.<br>Those are well known samples.  It is good to give credit but not always necessary.  Otherwise credit should be given.  If it is not it is plagiarism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a fan of the practice of alluding to other well know literature .
I think it is a great way to communicate complex ideas efficiently and capture big thoughts and ideas easily .
Who does n't know what 30 pieces of silver signifies ?
I love the statement " we are standing on the shoulders of giants " .
Such devices make progress in literature much more possible.Those are well known samples .
It is good to give credit but not always necessary .
Otherwise credit should be given .
If it is not it is plagiarism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a fan of the practice of alluding to other well know literature.
I think it is a great way to communicate complex ideas efficiently and capture big thoughts and ideas easily.
Who doesn't know what 30 pieces of silver signifies?
I love the statement "we are standing on the shoulders of giants".
Such devices make progress in literature much more possible.Those are well known samples.
It is good to give credit but not always necessary.
Otherwise credit should be given.
If it is not it is plagiarism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121098</id>
	<title>Re:Generating sales for the plagiarized book</title>
	<author>mr\_matticus</author>
	<datestamp>1265975340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Still waiting for copyright enforcement advocates to realize that copyright infringement isn't always a bad thing.</p></div><p>Nothing that is against the law or otherwise a violation of a property right is <em>always</em> a "bad thing".</p><p>No form of stealing is always bad.  Trespassing isn't always bad.  Neither is copyright infringement.  Neither is outright theft.  But in each instance, you impinge on someone's inherent and exclusive rights (otherwise known at law as "property"), and the adult thing to do is to face the consequences of that action and pay the price.</p><p>Take trespassing, for example.  Unless you're stomping on some prized and rare flowers, it causes no harm to anyone and permanently deprives the owner of the land of nothing.  And yet, it remains unlawful because the owner of the land has the sole right to authorize admission onto it, whether it would be reasonable to deny entry or not, or whether he charges for admission at a reasonable rate or not.  If you trespass, you are liable for damages should the owner wish to pursue them.</p><p>Now maybe you were injured and had a reasonable justification to trespass in order to get timely medical assistance.  That's something that can be considered in the weighing of damages, but it doesn't change the fact that what you did was unlawful.  It doesn't have to be reasonable, and the trespass might have been economically efficient or otherwise better than the alternative.</p><p>Taking food without paying when you're about to starve isn't a bad thing.  But then turning and claiming you did nothing wrong <em>is</em>.  You did what you had to do, and that will be considered in sentencing.  You'll pay for the food that you took (restoring the tangible), and you will pay for the <em>injury</em> you caused to the food's owner by taking it without permission.</p><p>With copyright infringement, you pay for the injury, your depriving the owner of his exclusive property rights.  That can range anywhere from a few hundred dollars (less than damages for trespassing) to many thousands, depending on the seriousness of your violation and the value of the work.  Yes, there should be a cap on damages for private citizens infringing without commercial gain, but no, there should be no exception for arguing that your breach of law was a net positive.  It often is with property crimes and impingement.</p><p>The law protects the rights of owners to maintain the freedom to make determinations on the use of their property.  When an owner decides to sell some of those property rights, he has the right to determine at what price and under what conditions to do so, constrained only by other laws limiting his choice.</p><p>People are never required to do what's best with what they own.  They're free to be as stupid, generous, savvy, greedy, or unreasonable as they wish, within the confines of the law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still waiting for copyright enforcement advocates to realize that copyright infringement is n't always a bad thing.Nothing that is against the law or otherwise a violation of a property right is always a " bad thing " .No form of stealing is always bad .
Trespassing is n't always bad .
Neither is copyright infringement .
Neither is outright theft .
But in each instance , you impinge on someone 's inherent and exclusive rights ( otherwise known at law as " property " ) , and the adult thing to do is to face the consequences of that action and pay the price.Take trespassing , for example .
Unless you 're stomping on some prized and rare flowers , it causes no harm to anyone and permanently deprives the owner of the land of nothing .
And yet , it remains unlawful because the owner of the land has the sole right to authorize admission onto it , whether it would be reasonable to deny entry or not , or whether he charges for admission at a reasonable rate or not .
If you trespass , you are liable for damages should the owner wish to pursue them.Now maybe you were injured and had a reasonable justification to trespass in order to get timely medical assistance .
That 's something that can be considered in the weighing of damages , but it does n't change the fact that what you did was unlawful .
It does n't have to be reasonable , and the trespass might have been economically efficient or otherwise better than the alternative.Taking food without paying when you 're about to starve is n't a bad thing .
But then turning and claiming you did nothing wrong is .
You did what you had to do , and that will be considered in sentencing .
You 'll pay for the food that you took ( restoring the tangible ) , and you will pay for the injury you caused to the food 's owner by taking it without permission.With copyright infringement , you pay for the injury , your depriving the owner of his exclusive property rights .
That can range anywhere from a few hundred dollars ( less than damages for trespassing ) to many thousands , depending on the seriousness of your violation and the value of the work .
Yes , there should be a cap on damages for private citizens infringing without commercial gain , but no , there should be no exception for arguing that your breach of law was a net positive .
It often is with property crimes and impingement.The law protects the rights of owners to maintain the freedom to make determinations on the use of their property .
When an owner decides to sell some of those property rights , he has the right to determine at what price and under what conditions to do so , constrained only by other laws limiting his choice.People are never required to do what 's best with what they own .
They 're free to be as stupid , generous , savvy , greedy , or unreasonable as they wish , within the confines of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still waiting for copyright enforcement advocates to realize that copyright infringement isn't always a bad thing.Nothing that is against the law or otherwise a violation of a property right is always a "bad thing".No form of stealing is always bad.
Trespassing isn't always bad.
Neither is copyright infringement.
Neither is outright theft.
But in each instance, you impinge on someone's inherent and exclusive rights (otherwise known at law as "property"), and the adult thing to do is to face the consequences of that action and pay the price.Take trespassing, for example.
Unless you're stomping on some prized and rare flowers, it causes no harm to anyone and permanently deprives the owner of the land of nothing.
And yet, it remains unlawful because the owner of the land has the sole right to authorize admission onto it, whether it would be reasonable to deny entry or not, or whether he charges for admission at a reasonable rate or not.
If you trespass, you are liable for damages should the owner wish to pursue them.Now maybe you were injured and had a reasonable justification to trespass in order to get timely medical assistance.
That's something that can be considered in the weighing of damages, but it doesn't change the fact that what you did was unlawful.
It doesn't have to be reasonable, and the trespass might have been economically efficient or otherwise better than the alternative.Taking food without paying when you're about to starve isn't a bad thing.
But then turning and claiming you did nothing wrong is.
You did what you had to do, and that will be considered in sentencing.
You'll pay for the food that you took (restoring the tangible), and you will pay for the injury you caused to the food's owner by taking it without permission.With copyright infringement, you pay for the injury, your depriving the owner of his exclusive property rights.
That can range anywhere from a few hundred dollars (less than damages for trespassing) to many thousands, depending on the seriousness of your violation and the value of the work.
Yes, there should be a cap on damages for private citizens infringing without commercial gain, but no, there should be no exception for arguing that your breach of law was a net positive.
It often is with property crimes and impingement.The law protects the rights of owners to maintain the freedom to make determinations on the use of their property.
When an owner decides to sell some of those property rights, he has the right to determine at what price and under what conditions to do so, constrained only by other laws limiting his choice.People are never required to do what's best with what they own.
They're free to be as stupid, generous, savvy, greedy, or unreasonable as they wish, within the confines of the law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122422</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265981280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If she made it clear that she is "sampling", and also provided the sources, then I could understand. But as it is, her explanation is clearly bullshit, and here's why.</p><p>The existing Net culture of "mixing and sampling media" is actually rather meticulous about respecting original authorship. It's generally perfectly fine to take someone's picture (or part thereof), and use it in yours; or to write a fanfic using characters or setting developed by another, or as a direct continuation; and so on. But you always say where you've borrowed your ideas from! Heck, even those lame YouTube videos list their sources for music and video...</p><p>And if you don't? Well, chances are no-one will find out, but if someone will, and they publicize it, you'll get heckled for it. It's just "seriously uncool" to not give credit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If she made it clear that she is " sampling " , and also provided the sources , then I could understand .
But as it is , her explanation is clearly bullshit , and here 's why.The existing Net culture of " mixing and sampling media " is actually rather meticulous about respecting original authorship .
It 's generally perfectly fine to take someone 's picture ( or part thereof ) , and use it in yours ; or to write a fanfic using characters or setting developed by another , or as a direct continuation ; and so on .
But you always say where you 've borrowed your ideas from !
Heck , even those lame YouTube videos list their sources for music and video...And if you do n't ?
Well , chances are no-one will find out , but if someone will , and they publicize it , you 'll get heckled for it .
It 's just " seriously uncool " to not give credit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If she made it clear that she is "sampling", and also provided the sources, then I could understand.
But as it is, her explanation is clearly bullshit, and here's why.The existing Net culture of "mixing and sampling media" is actually rather meticulous about respecting original authorship.
It's generally perfectly fine to take someone's picture (or part thereof), and use it in yours; or to write a fanfic using characters or setting developed by another, or as a direct continuation; and so on.
But you always say where you've borrowed your ideas from!
Heck, even those lame YouTube videos list their sources for music and video...And if you don't?
Well, chances are no-one will find out, but if someone will, and they publicize it, you'll get heckled for it.
It's just "seriously uncool" to not give credit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120676</id>
	<title>Good argument against copyright . . .</title>
	<author>wrencherd</author>
	<datestamp>1265973840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . protection.</p><p>Of course, the end of such protection would radically reduce the power of publication houses to create "prodigies" purely as a matter of marketing (as is the case of "Helena-Montana" here and her ilk), thereby rendering the little pup's comments as irrelevant as her prose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
protection.Of course , the end of such protection would radically reduce the power of publication houses to create " prodigies " purely as a matter of marketing ( as is the case of " Helena-Montana " here and her ilk ) , thereby rendering the little pup 's comments as irrelevant as her prose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
protection.Of course, the end of such protection would radically reduce the power of publication houses to create "prodigies" purely as a matter of marketing (as is the case of "Helena-Montana" here and her ilk), thereby rendering the little pup's comments as irrelevant as her prose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123650</id>
	<title>What Should Happen . . .</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1265989380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope she makes lots of money . . . and every last dime of it goes to the people she stole from.<br>What a jerk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope she makes lots of money .
. .
and every last dime of it goes to the people she stole from.What a jerk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope she makes lots of money .
. .
and every last dime of it goes to the people she stole from.What a jerk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120968</id>
	<title>Re:Whee</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1265974860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hello, kdawson.</p><blockquote><div><p>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?</p></div> </blockquote></div><p>Note to self: stop reading Slashdot when kdawson is editing because the signal-to-silliness goes to hell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , kdawson.Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated , but seen as normal ?
Note to self : stop reading Slashdot when kdawson is editing because the signal-to-silliness goes to hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, kdawson.Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?
Note to self: stop reading Slashdot when kdawson is editing because the signal-to-silliness goes to hell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121518</id>
	<title>Re:Definitely Not</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1265977260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no... OBVIOUSLY every song on my iPod was created and mixed by myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no... OBVIOUSLY every song on my iPod was created and mixed by myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no... OBVIOUSLY every song on my iPod was created and mixed by myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120260</id>
	<title>Childish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265972640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Artists who sample should always give the original artist credit... This is a childish attempt to explain, or rather justify, a wrong AFTER the fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Artists who sample should always give the original artist credit... This is a childish attempt to explain , or rather justify , a wrong AFTER the fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artists who sample should always give the original artist credit... This is a childish attempt to explain, or rather justify, a wrong AFTER the fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456</id>
	<title>Some thoughts on this</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1265973240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?</p></div><p>It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated , but seen as normal ? It was the best of times , it was the worst of times ; it was the age of wisdom , it was the age of foolishness ; it was the epoch of belief , it was the epoch of incredulity ; it was the season of Light , it was the season of Darkness ; it was the spring of hope , it was the winter of despair ; we had everything before us , we had nothing before us ; we were all going directly to Heaven , we were all going the other way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121090</id>
	<title>The Strawminator</title>
	<author>nicknamenotavailable</author>
	<datestamp>1265975280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to inter-splice book pages of the Terminator and the wizard of Oz.<br>A bit of tape, and I will be famous!</p><p>Would this be my creation or that of Cameron and Baum?<br>What if I paraphrase the sources?<br>What if I rewrite everything in another language?<br>What if I don't tell anyone what my sources are?</p><p>The limits of what we view as original work are shifting, why would that which is applicable to music or other media, not be applicable to books?</p><p>If I paint Leonardo painting the last supper and his canvas covers most of my canvas, then at what point does this cease to be my painting and become a copy of his?<br>What about art not in the public domain?<br>Would Disney be upset if I painted one of their artists creating Mickey mouse?</p><p>The girls book has won numerous awards. I don't know how much of her book really is just a "copy" of someones work, and if these are in the public domain. But her book must be interesting, otherwise this debate would not exist. To me this would qualify as 'sampling' other art to create something unique.</p><p>If I drew an illustration and someone used a part of it without my permission, at what point would I be upset? I think I would be upset if the new work decreases the value of my own work.</p><p>There are so many what if's that would be answered differently depending on culture or century, - that I find it unreasonable to think that our view should be static.</p><p>Did she copy stuff? Yes<br>Did she combine it into a new and unique work? Yes<br>Did it negatively influence any of the (non-public domain yet) copyright holders? I highly doubt it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to inter-splice book pages of the Terminator and the wizard of Oz.A bit of tape , and I will be famous ! Would this be my creation or that of Cameron and Baum ? What if I paraphrase the sources ? What if I rewrite everything in another language ? What if I do n't tell anyone what my sources are ? The limits of what we view as original work are shifting , why would that which is applicable to music or other media , not be applicable to books ? If I paint Leonardo painting the last supper and his canvas covers most of my canvas , then at what point does this cease to be my painting and become a copy of his ? What about art not in the public domain ? Would Disney be upset if I painted one of their artists creating Mickey mouse ? The girls book has won numerous awards .
I do n't know how much of her book really is just a " copy " of someones work , and if these are in the public domain .
But her book must be interesting , otherwise this debate would not exist .
To me this would qualify as 'sampling ' other art to create something unique.If I drew an illustration and someone used a part of it without my permission , at what point would I be upset ?
I think I would be upset if the new work decreases the value of my own work.There are so many what if 's that would be answered differently depending on culture or century , - that I find it unreasonable to think that our view should be static.Did she copy stuff ?
YesDid she combine it into a new and unique work ?
YesDid it negatively influence any of the ( non-public domain yet ) copyright holders ?
I highly doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to inter-splice book pages of the Terminator and the wizard of Oz.A bit of tape, and I will be famous!Would this be my creation or that of Cameron and Baum?What if I paraphrase the sources?What if I rewrite everything in another language?What if I don't tell anyone what my sources are?The limits of what we view as original work are shifting, why would that which is applicable to music or other media, not be applicable to books?If I paint Leonardo painting the last supper and his canvas covers most of my canvas, then at what point does this cease to be my painting and become a copy of his?What about art not in the public domain?Would Disney be upset if I painted one of their artists creating Mickey mouse?The girls book has won numerous awards.
I don't know how much of her book really is just a "copy" of someones work, and if these are in the public domain.
But her book must be interesting, otherwise this debate would not exist.
To me this would qualify as 'sampling' other art to create something unique.If I drew an illustration and someone used a part of it without my permission, at what point would I be upset?
I think I would be upset if the new work decreases the value of my own work.There are so many what if's that would be answered differently depending on culture or century, - that I find it unreasonable to think that our view should be static.Did she copy stuff?
YesDid she combine it into a new and unique work?
YesDid it negatively influence any of the (non-public domain yet) copyright holders?
I highly doubt it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121514</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1265977200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copying bits and pieces from other works without explicit attribution has been common in literature and the visual arts (and probably in music as well, though notes and passages rather than samples) for centuries if not millennia.  Everyone writing literature in English ends up taking something from Shakespeare at some point (as well as many others), and Shakespeare borrowed liberally from others.  Should Asimov have been hung by his thumbs for starting a story with (Melville's) "Call me Ishmael"?  Should the Star Trek writers be given the sack because of Khan's "From hell's heart I stab at thee" speech?  Neither gave credit.</p><p>Painters are even more obvious about it; many works include parts of earlier works; some even include entire earlier works.</p><p>The strict standards of plagiarism applied to academic works or journalistic works shouldn't be applied to other works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copying bits and pieces from other works without explicit attribution has been common in literature and the visual arts ( and probably in music as well , though notes and passages rather than samples ) for centuries if not millennia .
Everyone writing literature in English ends up taking something from Shakespeare at some point ( as well as many others ) , and Shakespeare borrowed liberally from others .
Should Asimov have been hung by his thumbs for starting a story with ( Melville 's ) " Call me Ishmael " ?
Should the Star Trek writers be given the sack because of Khan 's " From hell 's heart I stab at thee " speech ?
Neither gave credit.Painters are even more obvious about it ; many works include parts of earlier works ; some even include entire earlier works.The strict standards of plagiarism applied to academic works or journalistic works should n't be applied to other works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copying bits and pieces from other works without explicit attribution has been common in literature and the visual arts (and probably in music as well, though notes and passages rather than samples) for centuries if not millennia.
Everyone writing literature in English ends up taking something from Shakespeare at some point (as well as many others), and Shakespeare borrowed liberally from others.
Should Asimov have been hung by his thumbs for starting a story with (Melville's) "Call me Ishmael"?
Should the Star Trek writers be given the sack because of Khan's "From hell's heart I stab at thee" speech?
Neither gave credit.Painters are even more obvious about it; many works include parts of earlier works; some even include entire earlier works.The strict standards of plagiarism applied to academic works or journalistic works shouldn't be applied to other works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123698</id>
	<title>*Just* sampling?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265989860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One problem is an assumption that sampling is perfectly fine and the norm. Perhaps it's an increasingly rare perspective, but sampling always means a creatively compromised starting point. In other words, always an asterisk beside the work. Can't be compared apples-to-apples to an original piece that doesn't rely on sampling. Perhaps you can still create a commendable piece of work with elements of originality, but plenty of artists/writers/musicians still create original work without any sort of "sampling". Of course work can't be created in a vacuum, but substantial unattributed sections of work taken wholesale from another work mean a loss of artistic integrity to some degree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem is an assumption that sampling is perfectly fine and the norm .
Perhaps it 's an increasingly rare perspective , but sampling always means a creatively compromised starting point .
In other words , always an asterisk beside the work .
Ca n't be compared apples-to-apples to an original piece that does n't rely on sampling .
Perhaps you can still create a commendable piece of work with elements of originality , but plenty of artists/writers/musicians still create original work without any sort of " sampling " .
Of course work ca n't be created in a vacuum , but substantial unattributed sections of work taken wholesale from another work mean a loss of artistic integrity to some degree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem is an assumption that sampling is perfectly fine and the norm.
Perhaps it's an increasingly rare perspective, but sampling always means a creatively compromised starting point.
In other words, always an asterisk beside the work.
Can't be compared apples-to-apples to an original piece that doesn't rely on sampling.
Perhaps you can still create a commendable piece of work with elements of originality, but plenty of artists/writers/musicians still create original work without any sort of "sampling".
Of course work can't be created in a vacuum, but substantial unattributed sections of work taken wholesale from another work mean a loss of artistic integrity to some degree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31127724</id>
	<title>Rethink it?</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1266082560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rethink it? I \_always\_ thought musical sampling was plagiarism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rethink it ?
I \ _always \ _ thought musical sampling was plagiarism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rethink it?
I \_always\_ thought musical sampling was plagiarism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124310</id>
	<title>Is Plagiarism In Literature Just Sampling?</title>
	<author>Starlet Monroe</author>
	<datestamp>1265995740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the aspects of why plagiarism is seen as wrong is because you're taking credit for someone else's work.</p><p>Sampling would be taking a short section of text and putting using in quotes, or otherwise acknowledging in your work that you are using something that someone else wrote.</p><p>I also think that a work that is very obviously built of "samples" needn't expressly say what is what.  If you sample music to make your own song, you'd better credit properly and pay or else the original songwriter will end up owning your song.  I still find it to be incredible BS...the real lesson is "music industry people will screw you</p><p>In the United States, since 1991, the date of Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Bros. Records Inc., music samples need to be cleared by the copyright holder. That's what seems to be the real distinction here- you cannot consider literary plagarism to be analogous to music sampling because in fact legal music sampling is nothing like plagarism- works are cited, permission is requested and granted and often a considerable sum of money or share of future earnings takes place.</p><p>Helene Hegemann took someone else's work and presented it as her own, which I find disingenuous. Had she come out when she released the book and said she "collaged" works for the book that would have been one thing. That concept would have made for an interesting critique on a different media for "mash-ups".  In writing, one commonly samples other people's work using a moderately well-known process called "quoting". I'm mildly surprised she hasn't heard of it. There is a long-standing history of one artist performing works by another, adding their own touch to the music.</p><p>Who cares?  Artists who sample should always give the original artist credit...  When done wrong it is theft.</p><p>Perhaps she might have a legitimate point.  The fact that she didn't acknowledge the sources makes the whole thing all the more egregious and shows that she really probably knew what she was doing was wrong. If not, she was so ignorant that it didn't occur to her that this might be a problem. Either way, it is deeply unimpressive.  Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?</p><p>Foolishness!  She is the Vanilla Ice of literature sampling then.</p><p>Artistic questions aside, can you argue that plagiarism damages the author of the plagiarized work if it increases sales?</p><p>The simple fact is that plagiarism does not exist. Only in the academic world does the concept exist. In the real world, plagiarism itself is perfectly legal, and at worst is a moral/ethical failing.  Now this book in questions sounds like it has plagiarism if the source of borrowed ideas was not mentioned on an acknowledgments page or similar location. It might also be copyright infringement, regardless of any crediting, since specific expressions of ideas were re-used without permission. Only the latter is actually a problem. Crediting the idea sources would be nice, but the law does not require it.</p><p>I personally think this policy is ridiculous!  Is someone going to make the freely downloadable opensource remix of her book?  The law protects the rights of owners to maintain the freedom to make determinations on the use of their property. When an owner decides to sell some of those property rights, he has the right to determine at what price and under what conditions to do so, constrained only by other laws limiting his choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the aspects of why plagiarism is seen as wrong is because you 're taking credit for someone else 's work.Sampling would be taking a short section of text and putting using in quotes , or otherwise acknowledging in your work that you are using something that someone else wrote.I also think that a work that is very obviously built of " samples " need n't expressly say what is what .
If you sample music to make your own song , you 'd better credit properly and pay or else the original songwriter will end up owning your song .
I still find it to be incredible BS...the real lesson is " music industry people will screw youIn the United States , since 1991 , the date of Grand Upright Music , Ltd v. Warner Bros. Records Inc. , music samples need to be cleared by the copyright holder .
That 's what seems to be the real distinction here- you can not consider literary plagarism to be analogous to music sampling because in fact legal music sampling is nothing like plagarism- works are cited , permission is requested and granted and often a considerable sum of money or share of future earnings takes place.Helene Hegemann took someone else 's work and presented it as her own , which I find disingenuous .
Had she come out when she released the book and said she " collaged " works for the book that would have been one thing .
That concept would have made for an interesting critique on a different media for " mash-ups " .
In writing , one commonly samples other people 's work using a moderately well-known process called " quoting " .
I 'm mildly surprised she has n't heard of it .
There is a long-standing history of one artist performing works by another , adding their own touch to the music.Who cares ?
Artists who sample should always give the original artist credit... When done wrong it is theft.Perhaps she might have a legitimate point .
The fact that she did n't acknowledge the sources makes the whole thing all the more egregious and shows that she really probably knew what she was doing was wrong .
If not , she was so ignorant that it did n't occur to her that this might be a problem .
Either way , it is deeply unimpressive .
Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated , but seen as normal ? Foolishness !
She is the Vanilla Ice of literature sampling then.Artistic questions aside , can you argue that plagiarism damages the author of the plagiarized work if it increases sales ? The simple fact is that plagiarism does not exist .
Only in the academic world does the concept exist .
In the real world , plagiarism itself is perfectly legal , and at worst is a moral/ethical failing .
Now this book in questions sounds like it has plagiarism if the source of borrowed ideas was not mentioned on an acknowledgments page or similar location .
It might also be copyright infringement , regardless of any crediting , since specific expressions of ideas were re-used without permission .
Only the latter is actually a problem .
Crediting the idea sources would be nice , but the law does not require it.I personally think this policy is ridiculous !
Is someone going to make the freely downloadable opensource remix of her book ?
The law protects the rights of owners to maintain the freedom to make determinations on the use of their property .
When an owner decides to sell some of those property rights , he has the right to determine at what price and under what conditions to do so , constrained only by other laws limiting his choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the aspects of why plagiarism is seen as wrong is because you're taking credit for someone else's work.Sampling would be taking a short section of text and putting using in quotes, or otherwise acknowledging in your work that you are using something that someone else wrote.I also think that a work that is very obviously built of "samples" needn't expressly say what is what.
If you sample music to make your own song, you'd better credit properly and pay or else the original songwriter will end up owning your song.
I still find it to be incredible BS...the real lesson is "music industry people will screw youIn the United States, since 1991, the date of Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Bros. Records Inc., music samples need to be cleared by the copyright holder.
That's what seems to be the real distinction here- you cannot consider literary plagarism to be analogous to music sampling because in fact legal music sampling is nothing like plagarism- works are cited, permission is requested and granted and often a considerable sum of money or share of future earnings takes place.Helene Hegemann took someone else's work and presented it as her own, which I find disingenuous.
Had she come out when she released the book and said she "collaged" works for the book that would have been one thing.
That concept would have made for an interesting critique on a different media for "mash-ups".
In writing, one commonly samples other people's work using a moderately well-known process called "quoting".
I'm mildly surprised she hasn't heard of it.
There is a long-standing history of one artist performing works by another, adding their own touch to the music.Who cares?
Artists who sample should always give the original artist credit...  When done wrong it is theft.Perhaps she might have a legitimate point.
The fact that she didn't acknowledge the sources makes the whole thing all the more egregious and shows that she really probably knew what she was doing was wrong.
If not, she was so ignorant that it didn't occur to her that this might be a problem.
Either way, it is deeply unimpressive.
Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?Foolishness!
She is the Vanilla Ice of literature sampling then.Artistic questions aside, can you argue that plagiarism damages the author of the plagiarized work if it increases sales?The simple fact is that plagiarism does not exist.
Only in the academic world does the concept exist.
In the real world, plagiarism itself is perfectly legal, and at worst is a moral/ethical failing.
Now this book in questions sounds like it has plagiarism if the source of borrowed ideas was not mentioned on an acknowledgments page or similar location.
It might also be copyright infringement, regardless of any crediting, since specific expressions of ideas were re-used without permission.
Only the latter is actually a problem.
Crediting the idea sources would be nice, but the law does not require it.I personally think this policy is ridiculous!
Is someone going to make the freely downloadable opensource remix of her book?
The law protects the rights of owners to maintain the freedom to make determinations on the use of their property.
When an owner decides to sell some of those property rights, he has the right to determine at what price and under what conditions to do so, constrained only by other laws limiting his choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123344</id>
	<title>Re:Plagiarism and copyright violation</title>
	<author>TakeyMcTaker</author>
	<datestamp>1265986680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copy rights don't exist -- they are complete legal fictions, currently designed to make sure the Disney Corporation can keep profiting from any configuration of 3 intersecting circles.</p><p>The only valid concern here is attribution rights, which are natural in a social sense, and act as a consumer protection against fraud. Plagiarism is usually defined more in terms of proper attribution than "copying", because uses of the terms with the root "copy" are so ambiguous and problematic (esp. in the digital age) as to make it unusable in enforcement, even when limited to enforcement of social norms. Quotes, citations, footnotes, bibliographies, and now hyper-links are all valid methods to lend attributions to originating sources. None of these attribution methods were used in this case, which makes finding of fault very simple.</p><p>Please don't let this debate devolve into "fair use" definitions, which are still ambiguous after centuries of contradictory court findings. Defining fair use as less than 140 characters, a few sentences, a chorus, a bar, a frame, an act, or a page are all equally subjective and ambiguous. The variety of potential valid reuse contexts are just far too great to simplify by numerical means. Copyright laws in the U.S. have always been in conflict with the First Amendment, and "fair use" has never been a sufficient work-around.</p><p>Let's talk about attribution rights and forget the copy right fiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copy rights do n't exist -- they are complete legal fictions , currently designed to make sure the Disney Corporation can keep profiting from any configuration of 3 intersecting circles.The only valid concern here is attribution rights , which are natural in a social sense , and act as a consumer protection against fraud .
Plagiarism is usually defined more in terms of proper attribution than " copying " , because uses of the terms with the root " copy " are so ambiguous and problematic ( esp .
in the digital age ) as to make it unusable in enforcement , even when limited to enforcement of social norms .
Quotes , citations , footnotes , bibliographies , and now hyper-links are all valid methods to lend attributions to originating sources .
None of these attribution methods were used in this case , which makes finding of fault very simple.Please do n't let this debate devolve into " fair use " definitions , which are still ambiguous after centuries of contradictory court findings .
Defining fair use as less than 140 characters , a few sentences , a chorus , a bar , a frame , an act , or a page are all equally subjective and ambiguous .
The variety of potential valid reuse contexts are just far too great to simplify by numerical means .
Copyright laws in the U.S. have always been in conflict with the First Amendment , and " fair use " has never been a sufficient work-around.Let 's talk about attribution rights and forget the copy right fiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copy rights don't exist -- they are complete legal fictions, currently designed to make sure the Disney Corporation can keep profiting from any configuration of 3 intersecting circles.The only valid concern here is attribution rights, which are natural in a social sense, and act as a consumer protection against fraud.
Plagiarism is usually defined more in terms of proper attribution than "copying", because uses of the terms with the root "copy" are so ambiguous and problematic (esp.
in the digital age) as to make it unusable in enforcement, even when limited to enforcement of social norms.
Quotes, citations, footnotes, bibliographies, and now hyper-links are all valid methods to lend attributions to originating sources.
None of these attribution methods were used in this case, which makes finding of fault very simple.Please don't let this debate devolve into "fair use" definitions, which are still ambiguous after centuries of contradictory court findings.
Defining fair use as less than 140 characters, a few sentences, a chorus, a bar, a frame, an act, or a page are all equally subjective and ambiguous.
The variety of potential valid reuse contexts are just far too great to simplify by numerical means.
Copyright laws in the U.S. have always been in conflict with the First Amendment, and "fair use" has never been a sufficient work-around.Let's talk about attribution rights and forget the copy right fiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31126152</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts on this</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1266068400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?</p></div><p>It was the best of times, it was the worst of times;</p></div><p>It was a dark and stormy night.</p></div><p>Burma Shave</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated , but seen as normal ? It was the best of times , it was the worst of times ; It was a dark and stormy night.Burma Shave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have we entered a new era where plagiarism is not just tolerated, but seen as normal?It was the best of times, it was the worst of times;It was a dark and stormy night.Burma Shave
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121992</id>
	<title>Re:The most interesting sentence in the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265979360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The simple fact is that plagiarism does not exist. Only in the academic world does the concept exist. In the real world, plagiarism itself is perfectly legal, and at worst is a moral/ethical failing.</p><p>Copyright infringement is what matters in the real world, and is orthogonal to plagarism. For example, it is not actually plagiarism to publish somebody else's work in its entiretly as the majority of a new work, as long as the original atuhor is credited. (One may still be failed in a class for doing so, as the assignment would quite likely fail the requirements, but that is a separate issue). But it very well may be copyright infringement to do so. On the other extreme, it is plagiarism to use somebody else's arguments, even if you completely rewrote them. However that would not be copyright infringement, since copyright only covers the expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves.</p><p>Perhaps definitions would help show this: Plagiarism is "using somebody else's ideas without acknowledging the source.<br>Copyright infringement is "using somebody else's expression of an idea without permission and in excess of the fair use or equivalent exceptions".</p><p>Now this book in questions sounds like it has plagiarism if the source of borrowed ideas was not mentioned on an acknowledgments page or similar location. It might also be copyright infringement, regardless of any crediting, since specific expressions of ideas were re-used without permission. Only the latter is actually a problem. Crediting the idea sources would be nice, but the law does not require it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The simple fact is that plagiarism does not exist .
Only in the academic world does the concept exist .
In the real world , plagiarism itself is perfectly legal , and at worst is a moral/ethical failing.Copyright infringement is what matters in the real world , and is orthogonal to plagarism .
For example , it is not actually plagiarism to publish somebody else 's work in its entiretly as the majority of a new work , as long as the original atuhor is credited .
( One may still be failed in a class for doing so , as the assignment would quite likely fail the requirements , but that is a separate issue ) .
But it very well may be copyright infringement to do so .
On the other extreme , it is plagiarism to use somebody else 's arguments , even if you completely rewrote them .
However that would not be copyright infringement , since copyright only covers the expressions of ideas , not the ideas themselves.Perhaps definitions would help show this : Plagiarism is " using somebody else 's ideas without acknowledging the source.Copyright infringement is " using somebody else 's expression of an idea without permission and in excess of the fair use or equivalent exceptions " .Now this book in questions sounds like it has plagiarism if the source of borrowed ideas was not mentioned on an acknowledgments page or similar location .
It might also be copyright infringement , regardless of any crediting , since specific expressions of ideas were re-used without permission .
Only the latter is actually a problem .
Crediting the idea sources would be nice , but the law does not require it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simple fact is that plagiarism does not exist.
Only in the academic world does the concept exist.
In the real world, plagiarism itself is perfectly legal, and at worst is a moral/ethical failing.Copyright infringement is what matters in the real world, and is orthogonal to plagarism.
For example, it is not actually plagiarism to publish somebody else's work in its entiretly as the majority of a new work, as long as the original atuhor is credited.
(One may still be failed in a class for doing so, as the assignment would quite likely fail the requirements, but that is a separate issue).
But it very well may be copyright infringement to do so.
On the other extreme, it is plagiarism to use somebody else's arguments, even if you completely rewrote them.
However that would not be copyright infringement, since copyright only covers the expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves.Perhaps definitions would help show this: Plagiarism is "using somebody else's ideas without acknowledging the source.Copyright infringement is "using somebody else's expression of an idea without permission and in excess of the fair use or equivalent exceptions".Now this book in questions sounds like it has plagiarism if the source of borrowed ideas was not mentioned on an acknowledgments page or similar location.
It might also be copyright infringement, regardless of any crediting, since specific expressions of ideas were re-used without permission.
Only the latter is actually a problem.
Crediting the idea sources would be nice, but the law does not require it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31126152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31128370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31131224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31134012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31126282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31131084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1832257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31128370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31131084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31126282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31131224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31127724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31126152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31134012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31126160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31122468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31125890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31123632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31124032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1832257.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31120712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1832257.31121180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
