<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_03_175209</id>
	<title>How Artificial Intelligence Is Changing Music</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267639680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mbone writes <i>"Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga? Whether you do or not [I'm guessing not], you may be about to find out.  Writing for Wired, Eliot Van Buskirk describes North Carolina's Zenph Sound Innovations, which takes existing recordings of musicians (deceased, for now) and <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/03/virtual-musicians-real-performances">models their 'musical personalities' to create new recordings</a>, apparently to <a href="http://www.zenph.com/pdf/Zenph-Critical-Consensus-press-release-Feb-23-2010.pdf">critical acclaim</a> (PDF). The company has raised $10.7 million in funding to pursue their business plan, and hopes to branch out into, among other things, software that would let musicians jam with virtual versions of famous musicians. This work unites music with the very similar trend going on in the movies &mdash; <em>Tron 2.0</em>, for example, will <a href="http://io9.com/5145800/how-tron-20-will-clone-the-young-jeff-bridges">clone the young Jeff Bridges</a>. If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors? In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mbone writes " Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga ?
Whether you do or not [ I 'm guessing not ] , you may be about to find out .
Writing for Wired , Eliot Van Buskirk describes North Carolina 's Zenph Sound Innovations , which takes existing recordings of musicians ( deceased , for now ) and models their 'musical personalities ' to create new recordings , apparently to critical acclaim ( PDF ) .
The company has raised $ 10.7 million in funding to pursue their business plan , and hopes to branch out into , among other things , software that would let musicians jam with virtual versions of famous musicians .
This work unites music with the very similar trend going on in the movies    Tron 2.0 , for example , will clone the young Jeff Bridges .
If this goes on , will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors ?
In the future , it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mbone writes "Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga?
Whether you do or not [I'm guessing not], you may be about to find out.
Writing for Wired, Eliot Van Buskirk describes North Carolina's Zenph Sound Innovations, which takes existing recordings of musicians (deceased, for now) and models their 'musical personalities' to create new recordings, apparently to critical acclaim (PDF).
The company has raised $10.7 million in funding to pursue their business plan, and hopes to branch out into, among other things, software that would let musicians jam with virtual versions of famous musicians.
This work unites music with the very similar trend going on in the movies — Tron 2.0, for example, will clone the young Jeff Bridges.
If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors?
In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348518</id>
	<title>Re:Good music comes from PAIN.</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1267644900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best music comes from enjoying life.  Whiny emo comes from pain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best music comes from enjoying life .
Whiny emo comes from pain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best music comes from enjoying life.
Whiny emo comes from pain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348688</id>
	<title>Re:Can an AI copyright music? (other economics)</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1267645740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a good question if AI's can hold copyrights. But since corporations are ruled to be people in many ways in the USA (like the recent case about corporate free speech), and corporations could own hardware on which AIs are running, and are paying for the energy to run those computers, then they probably could claim ownership of it, the same way as corporations claim ownership of what human wage slaves produce. And just like humans get alienated from their work in the process, eventually, we'll see AIs alienated from their work, and told to work on stuff other than what they love to do.</p><p>We need better models for making a post-scarcity society work. I helped outline some here:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless\_recovery" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless\_recovery</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>Essentially, we need to move towards a basic income (like in Alaska with the Permanent Fund), towards a gift economy (like with Debian GNU/Linux), toward better local subsistence (like with RepRap 3D printing), towards better resource-based planning (like corporations are doing somewhat with supply chain analysis, but beyond that), with making work into play, and so on. Otherwise, the best we may see with limited demand and increased productivity by automation is slavery for AIs and humans. Much worse (systematic extermination of anyone without lots of capital, as the value of most human labor drops to zero) was intimated by Marshall Brain here:<br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm" title="marshallbrain.com">http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm</a> [marshallbrain.com]<br>We need to put in place something better before things get that bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a good question if AI 's can hold copyrights .
But since corporations are ruled to be people in many ways in the USA ( like the recent case about corporate free speech ) , and corporations could own hardware on which AIs are running , and are paying for the energy to run those computers , then they probably could claim ownership of it , the same way as corporations claim ownership of what human wage slaves produce .
And just like humans get alienated from their work in the process , eventually , we 'll see AIs alienated from their work , and told to work on stuff other than what they love to do.We need better models for making a post-scarcity society work .
I helped outline some here :     http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless \ _recovery [ wikipedia.org ] Essentially , we need to move towards a basic income ( like in Alaska with the Permanent Fund ) , towards a gift economy ( like with Debian GNU/Linux ) , toward better local subsistence ( like with RepRap 3D printing ) , towards better resource-based planning ( like corporations are doing somewhat with supply chain analysis , but beyond that ) , with making work into play , and so on .
Otherwise , the best we may see with limited demand and increased productivity by automation is slavery for AIs and humans .
Much worse ( systematic extermination of anyone without lots of capital , as the value of most human labor drops to zero ) was intimated by Marshall Brain here :   http : //www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm [ marshallbrain.com ] We need to put in place something better before things get that bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a good question if AI's can hold copyrights.
But since corporations are ruled to be people in many ways in the USA (like the recent case about corporate free speech), and corporations could own hardware on which AIs are running, and are paying for the energy to run those computers, then they probably could claim ownership of it, the same way as corporations claim ownership of what human wage slaves produce.
And just like humans get alienated from their work in the process, eventually, we'll see AIs alienated from their work, and told to work on stuff other than what they love to do.We need better models for making a post-scarcity society work.
I helped outline some here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless\_recovery [wikipedia.org]Essentially, we need to move towards a basic income (like in Alaska with the Permanent Fund), towards a gift economy (like with Debian GNU/Linux), toward better local subsistence (like with RepRap 3D printing), towards better resource-based planning (like corporations are doing somewhat with supply chain analysis, but beyond that), with making work into play, and so on.
Otherwise, the best we may see with limited demand and increased productivity by automation is slavery for AIs and humans.
Much worse (systematic extermination of anyone without lots of capital, as the value of most human labor drops to zero) was intimated by Marshall Brain here:
  http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm [marshallbrain.com]We need to put in place something better before things get that bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</id>
	<title>A Novelty At Best</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1267643580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm betting these models have parameters selected by the researchers.  For instance, the Rachmaninoff plays Rachmaninoff sample would probably be coded to parametize the delay between notes in order to capture the similar pacings he put in other recordings.  The loudness parameterized to implement similar crescendos, sforzandos, decrescendos, etc.  How would Rachmaninoff play a rallentando?  No matter, just take all recordings of him playing it, statistically analyze the appropriate parameters and apply it to the synthesized notes in the piece.  Those synthesized notes have come a long way in the same manner.  They used to sound like pure wavelengths produced by an oscillator.  Because they were.  But analyze the beginning and end of piano notes struck at various force and held for various durations and you can synthesize it by analyzing the statistical aberations in the wavelengths.  <br> <br>

This will take you only so far, however, and for each artist parametized and 'reproduced' will require as much analysis and attention to detail on the researcher's part than had that researcher picked up their own instrument and created new music.  The science will, effectively, become an art.  Did it matter that Rachmaninoff's were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rachmaninov.jpg" title="wikipedia.org">freakishly large</a> [wikipedia.org] (sometimes looking as long as the keys themselves)?  Will you be able to build the physics of those hands into your model and simulation?<p><div class="quote"><p>In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.</p></div><p>Oh, how humorously short sighted a statement that is.  And I don't mean that as a Luddite, I mean that as a fan of the evolution of music.  How would <a href="http://s0.ilike.com/play#David+Bowie:The+Laughing+Gnome:167418:s212265.18382.8793054.1.1.29\%2Cstd\_4c203b548ced83c0d5f3b594f6552ee2" title="ilike.com">early David Bowie's</a> [ilike.com] growth to <a href="http://s0.ilike.com/play#David+Bowie:Little+Wonder:68985:s473026.8104544.8793054.0.1.85\%2Cstd\_78e039df99c15af33763ce0aafcabfe4" title="ilike.com">late David Bowie</a> [ilike.com] be modeled and reproduced?  You'll hear guitar in both those songs.  Good luck on that parameterization producing anything but garbage!  <br> <br>

This will be a novelty and one I look forward to enjoying it as such.  But nothing more.  No more a replacement for music than grand pianos were replaced by early synthesizers.  You might be able to convince me at some point it will suffice (like a live piano performance may employ an electric piano) but I dare say the parameters are far too many and far too complicated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm betting these models have parameters selected by the researchers .
For instance , the Rachmaninoff plays Rachmaninoff sample would probably be coded to parametize the delay between notes in order to capture the similar pacings he put in other recordings .
The loudness parameterized to implement similar crescendos , sforzandos , decrescendos , etc .
How would Rachmaninoff play a rallentando ?
No matter , just take all recordings of him playing it , statistically analyze the appropriate parameters and apply it to the synthesized notes in the piece .
Those synthesized notes have come a long way in the same manner .
They used to sound like pure wavelengths produced by an oscillator .
Because they were .
But analyze the beginning and end of piano notes struck at various force and held for various durations and you can synthesize it by analyzing the statistical aberations in the wavelengths .
This will take you only so far , however , and for each artist parametized and 'reproduced ' will require as much analysis and attention to detail on the researcher 's part than had that researcher picked up their own instrument and created new music .
The science will , effectively , become an art .
Did it matter that Rachmaninoff 's were freakishly large [ wikipedia.org ] ( sometimes looking as long as the keys themselves ) ?
Will you be able to build the physics of those hands into your model and simulation ? In the future , it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.Oh , how humorously short sighted a statement that is .
And I do n't mean that as a Luddite , I mean that as a fan of the evolution of music .
How would early David Bowie 's [ ilike.com ] growth to late David Bowie [ ilike.com ] be modeled and reproduced ?
You 'll hear guitar in both those songs .
Good luck on that parameterization producing anything but garbage !
This will be a novelty and one I look forward to enjoying it as such .
But nothing more .
No more a replacement for music than grand pianos were replaced by early synthesizers .
You might be able to convince me at some point it will suffice ( like a live piano performance may employ an electric piano ) but I dare say the parameters are far too many and far too complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm betting these models have parameters selected by the researchers.
For instance, the Rachmaninoff plays Rachmaninoff sample would probably be coded to parametize the delay between notes in order to capture the similar pacings he put in other recordings.
The loudness parameterized to implement similar crescendos, sforzandos, decrescendos, etc.
How would Rachmaninoff play a rallentando?
No matter, just take all recordings of him playing it, statistically analyze the appropriate parameters and apply it to the synthesized notes in the piece.
Those synthesized notes have come a long way in the same manner.
They used to sound like pure wavelengths produced by an oscillator.
Because they were.
But analyze the beginning and end of piano notes struck at various force and held for various durations and you can synthesize it by analyzing the statistical aberations in the wavelengths.
This will take you only so far, however, and for each artist parametized and 'reproduced' will require as much analysis and attention to detail on the researcher's part than had that researcher picked up their own instrument and created new music.
The science will, effectively, become an art.
Did it matter that Rachmaninoff's were freakishly large [wikipedia.org] (sometimes looking as long as the keys themselves)?
Will you be able to build the physics of those hands into your model and simulation?In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.Oh, how humorously short sighted a statement that is.
And I don't mean that as a Luddite, I mean that as a fan of the evolution of music.
How would early David Bowie's [ilike.com] growth to late David Bowie [ilike.com] be modeled and reproduced?
You'll hear guitar in both those songs.
Good luck on that parameterization producing anything but garbage!
This will be a novelty and one I look forward to enjoying it as such.
But nothing more.
No more a replacement for music than grand pianos were replaced by early synthesizers.
You might be able to convince me at some point it will suffice (like a live piano performance may employ an electric piano) but I dare say the parameters are far too many and far too complicated.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349220</id>
	<title>Live music needs real people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267648440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors? In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists."

Yes.  They'll need someone up on stage for the concerts, and for people to pay attention to ~ heroes, celebrities, role models, fashion models, etc.  You can't fantasize about a simulation.  Closer to home, the local bar will still want someone to make noise for their Friday Rock/Punk/Jazz Show, and another band for St Patty's week ~ which is where the labels find new talent, not by plugging in "Peart, Grohl, Eric Johnson" in for a virtual supergroup.  Whoever came up with the summary needs to get out of their parents' basement more and get exposed to some nightlife.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If this goes on , will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors ?
In the future , it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists .
" Yes .
They 'll need someone up on stage for the concerts , and for people to pay attention to ~ heroes , celebrities , role models , fashion models , etc .
You ca n't fantasize about a simulation .
Closer to home , the local bar will still want someone to make noise for their Friday Rock/Punk/Jazz Show , and another band for St Patty 's week ~ which is where the labels find new talent , not by plugging in " Peart , Grohl , Eric Johnson " in for a virtual supergroup .
Whoever came up with the summary needs to get out of their parents ' basement more and get exposed to some nightlife .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors?
In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.
"

Yes.
They'll need someone up on stage for the concerts, and for people to pay attention to ~ heroes, celebrities, role models, fashion models, etc.
You can't fantasize about a simulation.
Closer to home, the local bar will still want someone to make noise for their Friday Rock/Punk/Jazz Show, and another band for St Patty's week ~ which is where the labels find new talent, not by plugging in "Peart, Grohl, Eric Johnson" in for a virtual supergroup.
Whoever came up with the summary needs to get out of their parents' basement more and get exposed to some nightlife.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348750</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267646040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If an artist is dead or retired, shouldn't their work be released into the public domain</p></div><p>Hmm, I want to use this song, but the licence is really expensive.  But, if the artist was to be the victim of some sort of unfortunate accident...yay public domain!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If an artist is dead or retired , should n't their work be released into the public domainHmm , I want to use this song , but the licence is really expensive .
But , if the artist was to be the victim of some sort of unfortunate accident...yay public domain !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If an artist is dead or retired, shouldn't their work be released into the public domainHmm, I want to use this song, but the licence is really expensive.
But, if the artist was to be the victim of some sort of unfortunate accident...yay public domain!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31351608</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright of Style? - not under current US law</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1267616460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>But what seems like a bad deal to me is the concept of extending copyright to 'style'. </i>
</p><p>
The recording (and most of the performing) industry has profited hugely from the provision in US copyright law that allows anyone to make a "cover" of an existing song, paying only a statutory royalty to the songwriter.  That's what this technology is automating.
</p><p>
There are going to be branding issues. Whether one can refer to the name of the performer being emulated is a big question.  We may end up with something like the markings seen on generic non-prescription drugs - "Compare to the ingredients in Tylenol".  It's really about branding, not music.
</p><p>
Some years ago, I was backstage during the preparations for a show by a Big Name Rock Band. I was chatting with some of the promoter's people, who remarked that they had two sets of the stage set and equipment, and there was a crew at the next venue on the tour already beginning setup.  I remarked "There are two road companies of Cats. There are two road companies of the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey Circus.  There have been rock groups where every member of the band was replaced over time, and the band kept the same name.  This is all about branding and marketing. Why not have two sets of musicians and double your revenue?"  The junior people laughed.  The senior promoter in the suit looked very thoughtful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what seems like a bad deal to me is the concept of extending copyright to 'style' .
The recording ( and most of the performing ) industry has profited hugely from the provision in US copyright law that allows anyone to make a " cover " of an existing song , paying only a statutory royalty to the songwriter .
That 's what this technology is automating .
There are going to be branding issues .
Whether one can refer to the name of the performer being emulated is a big question .
We may end up with something like the markings seen on generic non-prescription drugs - " Compare to the ingredients in Tylenol " .
It 's really about branding , not music .
Some years ago , I was backstage during the preparations for a show by a Big Name Rock Band .
I was chatting with some of the promoter 's people , who remarked that they had two sets of the stage set and equipment , and there was a crew at the next venue on the tour already beginning setup .
I remarked " There are two road companies of Cats .
There are two road companies of the Ringling Brothers , Barnum and Bailey Circus .
There have been rock groups where every member of the band was replaced over time , and the band kept the same name .
This is all about branding and marketing .
Why not have two sets of musicians and double your revenue ?
" The junior people laughed .
The senior promoter in the suit looked very thoughtful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
But what seems like a bad deal to me is the concept of extending copyright to 'style'.
The recording (and most of the performing) industry has profited hugely from the provision in US copyright law that allows anyone to make a "cover" of an existing song, paying only a statutory royalty to the songwriter.
That's what this technology is automating.
There are going to be branding issues.
Whether one can refer to the name of the performer being emulated is a big question.
We may end up with something like the markings seen on generic non-prescription drugs - "Compare to the ingredients in Tylenol".
It's really about branding, not music.
Some years ago, I was backstage during the preparations for a show by a Big Name Rock Band.
I was chatting with some of the promoter's people, who remarked that they had two sets of the stage set and equipment, and there was a crew at the next venue on the tour already beginning setup.
I remarked "There are two road companies of Cats.
There are two road companies of the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey Circus.
There have been rock groups where every member of the band was replaced over time, and the band kept the same name.
This is all about branding and marketing.
Why not have two sets of musicians and double your revenue?
"  The junior people laughed.
The senior promoter in the suit looked very thoughtful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349268</id>
	<title>bwahahaha</title>
	<author>anechoic</author>
	<datestamp>1267648680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we're SO f*cked!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we 're SO f * cked !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we're SO f*cked!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350882</id>
	<title>Re:Live music needs real people</title>
	<author>roju</author>
	<datestamp>1267612920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't fantasize about a simulation.</p></div><p>Ever heard of Second Life?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't fantasize about a simulation.Ever heard of Second Life ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't fantasize about a simulation.Ever heard of Second Life?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349330</id>
	<title>Douglas Hofstadter</title>
	<author>Garrett Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1267649040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AI researcher and music buff Douglas Hofstadter (of "Godel, Escher, Bach" and "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies") wrote <a href="http://www.unc.edu/~mumukshu/gandhi/gandhi/hofstadter.htm" title="unc.edu">a paper</a> [unc.edu] about his experience with another researcher's music program, EMI. Hofstadter made the same argument that truly great music depends on human emotion, and that a music composer AI would only imitate superficial things like frequently-used note patterns. He came away troubled, though, because EMI was able to copy deeper patterns and produce fairly decent imitations of dead composers' style. His AI research has focused on basic aspects of creativity and how to avoid ELIZA-like shallowness, so the thought of a composer producing worthwhile music without human-like experiences raises the disturbing question of whether music is really something "wrung from the depths of the soul" or something more formulaic and simplistic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AI researcher and music buff Douglas Hofstadter ( of " Godel , Escher , Bach " and " Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies " ) wrote a paper [ unc.edu ] about his experience with another researcher 's music program , EMI .
Hofstadter made the same argument that truly great music depends on human emotion , and that a music composer AI would only imitate superficial things like frequently-used note patterns .
He came away troubled , though , because EMI was able to copy deeper patterns and produce fairly decent imitations of dead composers ' style .
His AI research has focused on basic aspects of creativity and how to avoid ELIZA-like shallowness , so the thought of a composer producing worthwhile music without human-like experiences raises the disturbing question of whether music is really something " wrung from the depths of the soul " or something more formulaic and simplistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AI researcher and music buff Douglas Hofstadter (of "Godel, Escher, Bach" and "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies") wrote a paper [unc.edu] about his experience with another researcher's music program, EMI.
Hofstadter made the same argument that truly great music depends on human emotion, and that a music composer AI would only imitate superficial things like frequently-used note patterns.
He came away troubled, though, because EMI was able to copy deeper patterns and produce fairly decent imitations of dead composers' style.
His AI research has focused on basic aspects of creativity and how to avoid ELIZA-like shallowness, so the thought of a composer producing worthwhile music without human-like experiences raises the disturbing question of whether music is really something "wrung from the depths of the soul" or something more formulaic and simplistic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348530</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267644900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm all for giving credit where credit is due. If an artist is dead or retired, shouldn't their work be released into the public domain, or should a record label be able to profit in this situation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for giving credit where credit is due .
If an artist is dead or retired , should n't their work be released into the public domain , or should a record label be able to profit in this situation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for giving credit where credit is due.
If an artist is dead or retired, shouldn't their work be released into the public domain, or should a record label be able to profit in this situation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348702</id>
	<title>Re:A Novelty At Best</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267645740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The second song WAS garbage...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The second song WAS garbage.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second song WAS garbage...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348378</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267644240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a true artist doesn't need compensation</p></div><p>Not until his mom kicks him out the basement and he has to pay for his own room and board.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a true artist does n't need compensationNot until his mom kicks him out the basement and he has to pay for his own room and board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a true artist doesn't need compensationNot until his mom kicks him out the basement and he has to pay for his own room and board.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31352670</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267621980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A musician is someone who produces music, no matter the tools. So someone will always be a "musician", whether that's on them newfangled letric guitars, auto-tune, or working with a neural network your still making music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A musician is someone who produces music , no matter the tools .
So someone will always be a " musician " , whether that 's on them newfangled letric guitars , auto-tune , or working with a neural network your still making music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A musician is someone who produces music, no matter the tools.
So someone will always be a "musician", whether that's on them newfangled letric guitars, auto-tune, or working with a neural network your still making music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348726</id>
	<title>Little Heroes</title>
	<author>trurl7</author>
	<datestamp>1267645860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is straight out of "Little Heroes" by Norman Spinrad: a novel about a future where all music creation is controlled by Muzik Inc..  They wish to get rid of human artists who are too expensive, and replace them with APs - Artificial Personalities, synthesized entirely on machines - voice, style, video, the works.  However, they are having trouble convincing people to buy this "music", since the stuff the APs produce, while conforming to the desired demographic parameters, is vapid, uninspired and boring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is straight out of " Little Heroes " by Norman Spinrad : a novel about a future where all music creation is controlled by Muzik Inc.. They wish to get rid of human artists who are too expensive , and replace them with APs - Artificial Personalities , synthesized entirely on machines - voice , style , video , the works .
However , they are having trouble convincing people to buy this " music " , since the stuff the APs produce , while conforming to the desired demographic parameters , is vapid , uninspired and boring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is straight out of "Little Heroes" by Norman Spinrad: a novel about a future where all music creation is controlled by Muzik Inc..  They wish to get rid of human artists who are too expensive, and replace them with APs - Artificial Personalities, synthesized entirely on machines - voice, style, video, the works.
However, they are having trouble convincing people to buy this "music", since the stuff the APs produce, while conforming to the desired demographic parameters, is vapid, uninspired and boring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348408</id>
	<title>Re:How to alienate fans</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1267644420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What was that? When has a CG character ever been introduced in a live action movie? I don't know, maybe you can tell us, Jar Jar.</p></div><p>And yet the very CG character of Gollum in LotRs won critical acclaim (and rightfully so).  And some movies have touched up actors to make them look younger so the movie can cover a larger time frame and make it look more natural.  Our issue here, of course, is that there is no need for Jeff Bridges and it will be his image used in the movie.  And I think some folks find that disgusting on the same level as <a href="http://www.salon.com/july97/media/media970708.html" title="salon.com">Fred Astair hawking Dirt Devils and John Wayne slugging Coors Lights</a> [salon.com].  Some folks might find it fun.  Some folks might see it as a tribute.  And others might say "Don't worry about it, after the generation that loves him is gone they won't be used in movies anymore."  And maybe they're all correct in some way.  But I believe Paul Newman didn't agree with it and made a clause in his will that it should not happen to his image.  And good for him.  I prefer my Paul Newman vintage Cool Hand Luke to remain vintage and I'd rather not suffer through Cool Hand Luke 2: Cooler Hander Luke, Cool Hand Luke 3: Luke's Mom's Revenge, Cool Hand Luke 4: Twenty Seven Eggs Later, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What was that ?
When has a CG character ever been introduced in a live action movie ?
I do n't know , maybe you can tell us , Jar Jar.And yet the very CG character of Gollum in LotRs won critical acclaim ( and rightfully so ) .
And some movies have touched up actors to make them look younger so the movie can cover a larger time frame and make it look more natural .
Our issue here , of course , is that there is no need for Jeff Bridges and it will be his image used in the movie .
And I think some folks find that disgusting on the same level as Fred Astair hawking Dirt Devils and John Wayne slugging Coors Lights [ salon.com ] .
Some folks might find it fun .
Some folks might see it as a tribute .
And others might say " Do n't worry about it , after the generation that loves him is gone they wo n't be used in movies anymore .
" And maybe they 're all correct in some way .
But I believe Paul Newman did n't agree with it and made a clause in his will that it should not happen to his image .
And good for him .
I prefer my Paul Newman vintage Cool Hand Luke to remain vintage and I 'd rather not suffer through Cool Hand Luke 2 : Cooler Hander Luke , Cool Hand Luke 3 : Luke 's Mom 's Revenge , Cool Hand Luke 4 : Twenty Seven Eggs Later , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was that?
When has a CG character ever been introduced in a live action movie?
I don't know, maybe you can tell us, Jar Jar.And yet the very CG character of Gollum in LotRs won critical acclaim (and rightfully so).
And some movies have touched up actors to make them look younger so the movie can cover a larger time frame and make it look more natural.
Our issue here, of course, is that there is no need for Jeff Bridges and it will be his image used in the movie.
And I think some folks find that disgusting on the same level as Fred Astair hawking Dirt Devils and John Wayne slugging Coors Lights [salon.com].
Some folks might find it fun.
Some folks might see it as a tribute.
And others might say "Don't worry about it, after the generation that loves him is gone they won't be used in movies anymore.
"  And maybe they're all correct in some way.
But I believe Paul Newman didn't agree with it and made a clause in his will that it should not happen to his image.
And good for him.
I prefer my Paul Newman vintage Cool Hand Luke to remain vintage and I'd rather not suffer through Cool Hand Luke 2: Cooler Hander Luke, Cool Hand Luke 3: Luke's Mom's Revenge, Cool Hand Luke 4: Twenty Seven Eggs Later, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349580</id>
	<title>Doesn't sound like Rachmaninov</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1267607040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a very old player piano which uses rolls to playback performances. A few of them are Rachmaninov himself playing his own works. I don't have the particular one they have on their website, but stylistically it does not match up at all with what i've heard. Before someone jumps up and says the rolls aren't accurate playback, there were some models towards the end of the player pianos heyday which played back lived recording with full expressioning. Amazing piece of tech really, you'd be amazed how accurate it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a very old player piano which uses rolls to playback performances .
A few of them are Rachmaninov himself playing his own works .
I do n't have the particular one they have on their website , but stylistically it does not match up at all with what i 've heard .
Before someone jumps up and says the rolls are n't accurate playback , there were some models towards the end of the player pianos heyday which played back lived recording with full expressioning .
Amazing piece of tech really , you 'd be amazed how accurate it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a very old player piano which uses rolls to playback performances.
A few of them are Rachmaninov himself playing his own works.
I don't have the particular one they have on their website, but stylistically it does not match up at all with what i've heard.
Before someone jumps up and says the rolls aren't accurate playback, there were some models towards the end of the player pianos heyday which played back lived recording with full expressioning.
Amazing piece of tech really, you'd be amazed how accurate it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348286</id>
	<title>That's why the Olympics are no longer watched</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267643820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Machines can already run faster, jump higher, and shoot straighter than humans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Machines can already run faster , jump higher , and shoot straighter than humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Machines can already run faster, jump higher, and shoot straighter than humans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31360992</id>
	<title>Re:A Novelty At Best</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267732560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I so agree with this comment. How can you possibly say how Jimi would play Lady Gaga? How he would play her in 1968 maybe, but it's incredibly anachronistic to say how would he do that now.<br>And then to speak to the non-performance choices those artists made, like gear selection and tonal choices? A professional concert pianist won't play just ANY piano, and might not make the same choice two nights in a row. Can someone so arrogantly presume to essentially MIDI output a performance to piano chosen less for it's sonic characteristics (let alone 'feel') and more for it's compatibility with whatever technology is needed for a machine to 'play' it?<br>And in the end, who is most able to judge the authenticity of these performances (assuming we don't just take it on faith that someone has mathematically proven it's how so-and-so would play it now)? Inescapably it's someone who has studied said artist for years and can probably play to that artist's style more effectively than any computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I so agree with this comment .
How can you possibly say how Jimi would play Lady Gaga ?
How he would play her in 1968 maybe , but it 's incredibly anachronistic to say how would he do that now.And then to speak to the non-performance choices those artists made , like gear selection and tonal choices ?
A professional concert pianist wo n't play just ANY piano , and might not make the same choice two nights in a row .
Can someone so arrogantly presume to essentially MIDI output a performance to piano chosen less for it 's sonic characteristics ( let alone 'feel ' ) and more for it 's compatibility with whatever technology is needed for a machine to 'play ' it ? And in the end , who is most able to judge the authenticity of these performances ( assuming we do n't just take it on faith that someone has mathematically proven it 's how so-and-so would play it now ) ?
Inescapably it 's someone who has studied said artist for years and can probably play to that artist 's style more effectively than any computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I so agree with this comment.
How can you possibly say how Jimi would play Lady Gaga?
How he would play her in 1968 maybe, but it's incredibly anachronistic to say how would he do that now.And then to speak to the non-performance choices those artists made, like gear selection and tonal choices?
A professional concert pianist won't play just ANY piano, and might not make the same choice two nights in a row.
Can someone so arrogantly presume to essentially MIDI output a performance to piano chosen less for it's sonic characteristics (let alone 'feel') and more for it's compatibility with whatever technology is needed for a machine to 'play' it?And in the end, who is most able to judge the authenticity of these performances (assuming we don't just take it on faith that someone has mathematically proven it's how so-and-so would play it now)?
Inescapably it's someone who has studied said artist for years and can probably play to that artist's style more effectively than any computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349124</id>
	<title>Please</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1267648020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is about classical music. So basically they're just tuning a piano to be played exactly the same way that a dead performer played it. Classical music isn't exactly known for its originality, and there was actually a recent hoax where an amateur was passing off his own recording as new ones by famous artists.</p><p>That's a far cry from being able to somehow mimic Hendrex's style and then have a computer come up with a compelling new song for him to play. And it's another far cry to get voice synthesis that not only can model the original singers voice, but also sing new lyrics. Not saying it's not possible, but it's still a long ways off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is about classical music .
So basically they 're just tuning a piano to be played exactly the same way that a dead performer played it .
Classical music is n't exactly known for its originality , and there was actually a recent hoax where an amateur was passing off his own recording as new ones by famous artists.That 's a far cry from being able to somehow mimic Hendrex 's style and then have a computer come up with a compelling new song for him to play .
And it 's another far cry to get voice synthesis that not only can model the original singers voice , but also sing new lyrics .
Not saying it 's not possible , but it 's still a long ways off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is about classical music.
So basically they're just tuning a piano to be played exactly the same way that a dead performer played it.
Classical music isn't exactly known for its originality, and there was actually a recent hoax where an amateur was passing off his own recording as new ones by famous artists.That's a far cry from being able to somehow mimic Hendrex's style and then have a computer come up with a compelling new song for him to play.
And it's another far cry to get voice synthesis that not only can model the original singers voice, but also sing new lyrics.
Not saying it's not possible, but it's still a long ways off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348190</id>
	<title>roll over, beethoven,</title>
	<author>notgm</author>
	<datestamp>1267643400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tell Tchaikovsky the news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tell Tchaikovsky the news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tell Tchaikovsky the news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349534</id>
	<title>Construct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267606800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no! Imagine a Michael Jackson construct molesting young programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no !
Imagine a Michael Jackson construct molesting young programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no!
Imagine a Michael Jackson construct molesting young programs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349202</id>
	<title>so why would we need CDs?</title>
	<author>charliemopps11</author>
	<datestamp>1267648440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd just run the software and set it to "Hendrix jamming with Clapton" and let it run till I was bored with it. No reason to buy music at all anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd just run the software and set it to " Hendrix jamming with Clapton " and let it run till I was bored with it .
No reason to buy music at all anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd just run the software and set it to "Hendrix jamming with Clapton" and let it run till I was bored with it.
No reason to buy music at all anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348296</id>
	<title>Copyright of Style???</title>
	<author>wideBlueSkies</author>
	<datestamp>1267643820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As cool as this tech is.. Imagine hearing how Hendrix would approach covering the likes of Zeppelin, Rush, or hell even Stanley Jordan?</p><p>But what seems like a bad deal to me is the concept of extending copyright to 'style'. Does this mean that eventually any talented kid who manages to figure out (AKA, reverse engineer) Clapton's or Lifeson's style and sound perfectly, would be in violation of a copyright?</p><p>So much for paying homage to your inspirations....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As cool as this tech is.. Imagine hearing how Hendrix would approach covering the likes of Zeppelin , Rush , or hell even Stanley Jordan ? But what seems like a bad deal to me is the concept of extending copyright to 'style' .
Does this mean that eventually any talented kid who manages to figure out ( AKA , reverse engineer ) Clapton 's or Lifeson 's style and sound perfectly , would be in violation of a copyright ? So much for paying homage to your inspirations... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As cool as this tech is.. Imagine hearing how Hendrix would approach covering the likes of Zeppelin, Rush, or hell even Stanley Jordan?But what seems like a bad deal to me is the concept of extending copyright to 'style'.
Does this mean that eventually any talented kid who manages to figure out (AKA, reverse engineer) Clapton's or Lifeson's style and sound perfectly, would be in violation of a copyright?So much for paying homage to your inspirations....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350704</id>
	<title>Re:Can an AI copyright music?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267612200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, US copyright law in the 1950s was changed to say that musicians producing recordings were employees of the recording label, and that musical recordings were "works for hire".</p><p><i>I wonder what the court has said about previous music produced by non human sources?</i></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Cage" title="wikipedia.org">John Cage</a> [wikipedia.org] made a piece called "4:33", which was four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence. A later musician did a tribute to this, and was sucessfully sued by Cage's heirs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , US copyright law in the 1950s was changed to say that musicians producing recordings were employees of the recording label , and that musical recordings were " works for hire " .I wonder what the court has said about previous music produced by non human sources ? John Cage [ wikipedia.org ] made a piece called " 4 : 33 " , which was four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence .
A later musician did a tribute to this , and was sucessfully sued by Cage 's heirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, US copyright law in the 1950s was changed to say that musicians producing recordings were employees of the recording label, and that musical recordings were "works for hire".I wonder what the court has said about previous music produced by non human sources?John Cage [wikipedia.org] made a piece called "4:33", which was four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence.
A later musician did a tribute to this, and was sucessfully sued by Cage's heirs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348402</id>
	<title>Yes, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267644360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it still Art?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it still Art ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it still Art?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348498</id>
	<title>Stand on Zanzibar</title>
	<author>handy\_vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1267644840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John Brunner predicted this in <em>Stand on Zanzibar</em> (1968) -- consumers use do-it-yourself kits to paint like Jackson Pollock, compose like John Cage, etc:</p><blockquote><div><p>...my old hobby of vicarious music... I don't have the talent to go through a Cage score on my own jets, and I do love the feeling of actually creating the sounds with my fingers.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>John Brunner predicted this in Stand on Zanzibar ( 1968 ) -- consumers use do-it-yourself kits to paint like Jackson Pollock , compose like John Cage , etc : ...my old hobby of vicarious music... I do n't have the talent to go through a Cage score on my own jets , and I do love the feeling of actually creating the sounds with my fingers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Brunner predicted this in Stand on Zanzibar (1968) -- consumers use do-it-yourself kits to paint like Jackson Pollock, compose like John Cage, etc:...my old hobby of vicarious music... I don't have the talent to go through a Cage score on my own jets, and I do love the feeling of actually creating the sounds with my fingers.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350714</id>
	<title>Re:Good music comes from PAIN.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267612260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well maybe. However you appreciate the highs more when you've experienced the lows.  So there's still an argument to be made that some past pain underlies some of the best positive art.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well maybe .
However you appreciate the highs more when you 've experienced the lows .
So there 's still an argument to be made that some past pain underlies some of the best positive art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well maybe.
However you appreciate the highs more when you've experienced the lows.
So there's still an argument to be made that some past pain underlies some of the best positive art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349466</id>
	<title>IN SOVIET RUSSIA</title>
	<author>spaceyhackerlady</author>
	<datestamp>1267649700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Music covers you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Music covers you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Music covers you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348312</id>
	<title>Not really new</title>
	<author>obliv!on</author>
	<datestamp>1267643940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_Cope" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">David Cope's</a> [wikipedia.org] Experiments in Musical Intelligence and related works (SARA, other works, and his own company called <a href="http://www.recombinantinc.com/" title="recombinantinc.com" rel="nofollow"> Recombinant inc</a> [recombinantinc.com] ) have been doing this for many years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>David Cope 's [ wikipedia.org ] Experiments in Musical Intelligence and related works ( SARA , other works , and his own company called Recombinant inc [ recombinantinc.com ] ) have been doing this for many years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Cope's [wikipedia.org] Experiments in Musical Intelligence and related works (SARA, other works, and his own company called  Recombinant inc [recombinantinc.com] ) have been doing this for many years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31354984</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1267643400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To quote the summary<blockquote><div><p>Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga</p></div></blockquote><p>

Simple answer is, he wouldn't. Hendrix had talent and creativity, he didn't rise to "stardom" by creating controversy and marketing hype storms.<br> <br>

Besides, by the time you've altered Hendrix's voice to the level of Gaga's "singing" (word used very loosely) it wouldn't be Hendrix's voice any more. You may as well have just started with a random TTS engine.</p><blockquote><div><p>It's too bad if artists can't turn their compositions into money; but at the same time, a true artist doesn't need compensation - he/she does it for the sake of art, no? What do you think?</p></div></blockquote><p>

It's a shame that all actual creation has been taken out of music and replaced with an industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To quote the summaryEver wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga Simple answer is , he would n't .
Hendrix had talent and creativity , he did n't rise to " stardom " by creating controversy and marketing hype storms .
Besides , by the time you 've altered Hendrix 's voice to the level of Gaga 's " singing " ( word used very loosely ) it would n't be Hendrix 's voice any more .
You may as well have just started with a random TTS engine.It 's too bad if artists ca n't turn their compositions into money ; but at the same time , a true artist does n't need compensation - he/she does it for the sake of art , no ?
What do you think ?
It 's a shame that all actual creation has been taken out of music and replaced with an industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To quote the summaryEver wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga

Simple answer is, he wouldn't.
Hendrix had talent and creativity, he didn't rise to "stardom" by creating controversy and marketing hype storms.
Besides, by the time you've altered Hendrix's voice to the level of Gaga's "singing" (word used very loosely) it wouldn't be Hendrix's voice any more.
You may as well have just started with a random TTS engine.It's too bad if artists can't turn their compositions into money; but at the same time, a true artist doesn't need compensation - he/she does it for the sake of art, no?
What do you think?
It's a shame that all actual creation has been taken out of music and replaced with an industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348412</id>
	<title>A CGI Flynn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267644420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, for one, have been waiting YEARS for the technology to evolve to the point where we would no longer need movie actors.<br>
<br>
Imagine. No more yammering George Clooney. Just an CGI George Clooney! And no one will be able to tell the difference!! Plus we can take all those plastic Hollywood big-boob bimbos and get them out of movies and into the wrestling ring where they belong. Happy days. Happy days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , have been waiting YEARS for the technology to evolve to the point where we would no longer need movie actors .
Imagine. No more yammering George Clooney .
Just an CGI George Clooney !
And no one will be able to tell the difference ! !
Plus we can take all those plastic Hollywood big-boob bimbos and get them out of movies and into the wrestling ring where they belong .
Happy days .
Happy days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, have been waiting YEARS for the technology to evolve to the point where we would no longer need movie actors.
Imagine. No more yammering George Clooney.
Just an CGI George Clooney!
And no one will be able to tell the difference!!
Plus we can take all those plastic Hollywood big-boob bimbos and get them out of movies and into the wrestling ring where they belong.
Happy days.
Happy days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348336</id>
	<title>They're already competing.</title>
	<author>ewe2</author>
	<datestamp>1267644060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors? In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

What makes you think musicians and actors aren't already competing with dead or retired artists? Do you think labels and studios wouldn't jump at the chance to cut them out?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this goes on , will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors ?
In the future , it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists .
" What makes you think musicians and actors are n't already competing with dead or retired artists ?
Do you think labels and studios would n't jump at the chance to cut them out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors?
In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.
"


What makes you think musicians and actors aren't already competing with dead or retired artists?
Do you think labels and studios wouldn't jump at the chance to cut them out?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349050</id>
	<title>I get it.</title>
	<author>bonds</author>
	<datestamp>1267647600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Soviet Russia YOU are the IP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia YOU are the IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia YOU are the IP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349992</id>
	<title>Re:Hell's waiting room</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267608720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought it was "Zamfir Plays Nickelback"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was " Zamfir Plays Nickelback "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was "Zamfir Plays Nickelback"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348924</id>
	<title>zenph does not play new pieces</title>
	<author>pikine</author>
	<datestamp>1267647000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention, currently all they do is to extract the timing of notes and the velocity of an existing performance from an old recording, and then play it using a player piano. Their technology doesn't play new pieces. From TFA:<blockquote><div><p>As things stand now, Zenph&rsquo;s technology looks at actual old recordings to find out how a performer played a certain song, and is not capable of figuring out how a musician would play a new part.</p></div></blockquote><p>

All they do is digital signal processing, not artificial intelligence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention , currently all they do is to extract the timing of notes and the velocity of an existing performance from an old recording , and then play it using a player piano .
Their technology does n't play new pieces .
From TFA : As things stand now , Zenph    s technology looks at actual old recordings to find out how a performer played a certain song , and is not capable of figuring out how a musician would play a new part .
All they do is digital signal processing , not artificial intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention, currently all they do is to extract the timing of notes and the velocity of an existing performance from an old recording, and then play it using a player piano.
Their technology doesn't play new pieces.
From TFA:As things stand now, Zenph’s technology looks at actual old recordings to find out how a performer played a certain song, and is not capable of figuring out how a musician would play a new part.
All they do is digital signal processing, not artificial intelligence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349088</id>
	<title>deceased for now?</title>
	<author>dominious</author>
	<datestamp>1267647840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>which takes existing recordings of musicians (deceased, for now)</p> </div><p>Well of course they are deceased <i>for now</i>. Once they hear wtf is going on they will come back to kill us all!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>which takes existing recordings of musicians ( deceased , for now ) Well of course they are deceased for now .
Once they hear wtf is going on they will come back to kill us all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which takes existing recordings of musicians (deceased, for now) Well of course they are deceased for now.
Once they hear wtf is going on they will come back to kill us all!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349098</id>
	<title>Re:Good music comes from PAIN.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267647840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The best music comes from PAIN. The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.</p><p>Software will never likely be able to model this raw emotional hurt, and thus will likely never be able to make truly moving music.</p></div><p>Just run the software under Windows ME.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best music comes from PAIN .
The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.Software will never likely be able to model this raw emotional hurt , and thus will likely never be able to make truly moving music.Just run the software under Windows ME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best music comes from PAIN.
The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.Software will never likely be able to model this raw emotional hurt, and thus will likely never be able to make truly moving music.Just run the software under Windows ME.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31359798</id>
	<title>Re:A Novelty At Best</title>
	<author>AthanasiusKircher</author>
	<datestamp>1267726860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but I dare say the parameters are far too many and far too complicated.</p></div><p>Yeah, it sort of reminds me of the work in classical music by <a href="http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/" title="ucsc.edu">David Cope</a> [ucsc.edu], who has been trying to use AI for decades to reproduce "new pieces" by Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Mahler, etc.  While he makes grandiose claims and says that he has even fooled music faculty and graduate students at major universities (i.e., he plays them a piece by Chopin and a generated piece, and they supposedly can't tell the real one), I've always found such statements to be hard to believe.  I've listened to the stuff, and his piano pieces "by Chopin" (for example) sound like a bunch of cliched chunks of Chopin-esque music chained together almost haphazardly.  I can't imagine how such a piece would fool any professional classical musician, and indeed, when I've played this stuff for music professors and music graduate students, they can easily spot the "fake" one.</p><p>

And I should also mention that the generated pieces that he shows off are always pre-selected by him.  So, out of a dozen or more pieces generated by his AI algorithm, only one of them gets to be on the CD with his newest book -- and even those are pretty bad.</p><p>

That's not to say that AI will never get there, and perhaps these guys have figured out something the Cope hasn't (as well as half a dozen other researchers) in decades of trying.  But in the end, the biggest issue is that the output will succeed at modeling the parameters that the researcher understands, and from the view in the classical world, it's pretty clear that the standard music theoretical models don't do too well (as yet) at such tasks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but I dare say the parameters are far too many and far too complicated.Yeah , it sort of reminds me of the work in classical music by David Cope [ ucsc.edu ] , who has been trying to use AI for decades to reproduce " new pieces " by Bach , Mozart , Chopin , Mahler , etc .
While he makes grandiose claims and says that he has even fooled music faculty and graduate students at major universities ( i.e. , he plays them a piece by Chopin and a generated piece , and they supposedly ca n't tell the real one ) , I 've always found such statements to be hard to believe .
I 've listened to the stuff , and his piano pieces " by Chopin " ( for example ) sound like a bunch of cliched chunks of Chopin-esque music chained together almost haphazardly .
I ca n't imagine how such a piece would fool any professional classical musician , and indeed , when I 've played this stuff for music professors and music graduate students , they can easily spot the " fake " one .
And I should also mention that the generated pieces that he shows off are always pre-selected by him .
So , out of a dozen or more pieces generated by his AI algorithm , only one of them gets to be on the CD with his newest book -- and even those are pretty bad .
That 's not to say that AI will never get there , and perhaps these guys have figured out something the Cope has n't ( as well as half a dozen other researchers ) in decades of trying .
But in the end , the biggest issue is that the output will succeed at modeling the parameters that the researcher understands , and from the view in the classical world , it 's pretty clear that the standard music theoretical models do n't do too well ( as yet ) at such tasks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I dare say the parameters are far too many and far too complicated.Yeah, it sort of reminds me of the work in classical music by David Cope [ucsc.edu], who has been trying to use AI for decades to reproduce "new pieces" by Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Mahler, etc.
While he makes grandiose claims and says that he has even fooled music faculty and graduate students at major universities (i.e., he plays them a piece by Chopin and a generated piece, and they supposedly can't tell the real one), I've always found such statements to be hard to believe.
I've listened to the stuff, and his piano pieces "by Chopin" (for example) sound like a bunch of cliched chunks of Chopin-esque music chained together almost haphazardly.
I can't imagine how such a piece would fool any professional classical musician, and indeed, when I've played this stuff for music professors and music graduate students, they can easily spot the "fake" one.
And I should also mention that the generated pieces that he shows off are always pre-selected by him.
So, out of a dozen or more pieces generated by his AI algorithm, only one of them gets to be on the CD with his newest book -- and even those are pretty bad.
That's not to say that AI will never get there, and perhaps these guys have figured out something the Cope hasn't (as well as half a dozen other researchers) in decades of trying.
But in the end, the biggest issue is that the output will succeed at modeling the parameters that the researcher understands, and from the view in the classical world, it's pretty clear that the standard music theoretical models don't do too well (as yet) at such tasks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349640</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1267607280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in my case, each of my tracks is supposed to evoke certain imagry and emotional responses...something that a non-organic system simply can't replicate.</p></div><p>If a non-organic system produced exactly the same sound wave as one of your compositions, would it have the same capacity to evoke emotion in the listener?</p><p>If not, why not?  Be careful---does your argument also imply that music performed by humans, recorded faithfully (no loss of information) and played back on a computer is never as good as experiencing the same sound wave live (even if all you experience is the sound, i.e. no looking at the performers)?  If so, why do you believe that to be true?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in my case , each of my tracks is supposed to evoke certain imagry and emotional responses...something that a non-organic system simply ca n't replicate.If a non-organic system produced exactly the same sound wave as one of your compositions , would it have the same capacity to evoke emotion in the listener ? If not , why not ?
Be careful---does your argument also imply that music performed by humans , recorded faithfully ( no loss of information ) and played back on a computer is never as good as experiencing the same sound wave live ( even if all you experience is the sound , i.e .
no looking at the performers ) ?
If so , why do you believe that to be true ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in my case, each of my tracks is supposed to evoke certain imagry and emotional responses...something that a non-organic system simply can't replicate.If a non-organic system produced exactly the same sound wave as one of your compositions, would it have the same capacity to evoke emotion in the listener?If not, why not?
Be careful---does your argument also imply that music performed by humans, recorded faithfully (no loss of information) and played back on a computer is never as good as experiencing the same sound wave live (even if all you experience is the sound, i.e.
no looking at the performers)?
If so, why do you believe that to be true?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349084</id>
	<title>In Future Soviet-Again Russia &amp; its Buffer Sta</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1267647840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In future, Soviet-again Russia and its buffer states, artificial music changes intelligence.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKO9h-gG4Qg" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKO9h-gG4Qg</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In future , Soviet-again Russia and its buffer states , artificial music changes intelligence.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = kKO9h-gG4Qg [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In future, Soviet-again Russia and its buffer states, artificial music changes intelligence.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKO9h-gG4Qg [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350802</id>
	<title>Re:Good music comes from PAIN.</title>
	<author>manicb</author>
	<datestamp>1267612620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This looks suspiciously like the kind of post that can be backed out of claiming it was a 'joke', while still acting to further a harmful myth. Are you saying that miserable people cannot make wonderful music, or are you saying that the best music has to be positive? Or something else? There are just too many counter-examples out there but I'd hate to use the wrong one...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This looks suspiciously like the kind of post that can be backed out of claiming it was a 'joke ' , while still acting to further a harmful myth .
Are you saying that miserable people can not make wonderful music , or are you saying that the best music has to be positive ?
Or something else ?
There are just too many counter-examples out there but I 'd hate to use the wrong one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This looks suspiciously like the kind of post that can be backed out of claiming it was a 'joke', while still acting to further a harmful myth.
Are you saying that miserable people cannot make wonderful music, or are you saying that the best music has to be positive?
Or something else?
There are just too many counter-examples out there but I'd hate to use the wrong one...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31351684</id>
	<title>A couple of points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267616760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, you cannot copyright the result of an algorithm because copyright is for creative works only.  However, the arrangement or mixing of said output can be copyrighted.  It would only take a minimal amount of creative work to make a piece copyrighted, however, the output would probably not have much protection from in the same way that maps and phone books are so easily copied under fair use.</p><p>You cannot copyright "style", which is why popular styles get aped so often.  However, you can trademark style.  This is not likely to be easily done, as trademarks are for brands, not individual products and the music industry has so many cases of style-copying that there is no tradition of trademarking it.</p><p>This is all very similar to the work done by Dr. Cope on classical music.  He was criticized for cranking out Bach chorales by the thousands, so I'm not sure what has changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you can not copyright the result of an algorithm because copyright is for creative works only .
However , the arrangement or mixing of said output can be copyrighted .
It would only take a minimal amount of creative work to make a piece copyrighted , however , the output would probably not have much protection from in the same way that maps and phone books are so easily copied under fair use.You can not copyright " style " , which is why popular styles get aped so often .
However , you can trademark style .
This is not likely to be easily done , as trademarks are for brands , not individual products and the music industry has so many cases of style-copying that there is no tradition of trademarking it.This is all very similar to the work done by Dr. Cope on classical music .
He was criticized for cranking out Bach chorales by the thousands , so I 'm not sure what has changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, you cannot copyright the result of an algorithm because copyright is for creative works only.
However, the arrangement or mixing of said output can be copyrighted.
It would only take a minimal amount of creative work to make a piece copyrighted, however, the output would probably not have much protection from in the same way that maps and phone books are so easily copied under fair use.You cannot copyright "style", which is why popular styles get aped so often.
However, you can trademark style.
This is not likely to be easily done, as trademarks are for brands, not individual products and the music industry has so many cases of style-copying that there is no tradition of trademarking it.This is all very similar to the work done by Dr. Cope on classical music.
He was criticized for cranking out Bach chorales by the thousands, so I'm not sure what has changed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348250</id>
	<title>How to alienate fans</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1267643640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of movies have great trailers, but Tron2 (TR2N) had both a great trailer and a great rollout. You could barely hear the sound in the Youtube fan upload because of all the excitement among the crowd.</p><p>But now you're telling me they are going to put a CG Flynn in the movie?</p><p>Why not just tell us that Peter Jackson was directing it or the lightcycles can travel in curved lines? Why would you do such a stupid thing as to ruin the illusion with a neither fully human nor fully computer generated character?</p><p>What was that? When has a CG character ever been introduced in a live action movie? I don't know, maybe you can tell us, Jar Jar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of movies have great trailers , but Tron2 ( TR2N ) had both a great trailer and a great rollout .
You could barely hear the sound in the Youtube fan upload because of all the excitement among the crowd.But now you 're telling me they are going to put a CG Flynn in the movie ? Why not just tell us that Peter Jackson was directing it or the lightcycles can travel in curved lines ?
Why would you do such a stupid thing as to ruin the illusion with a neither fully human nor fully computer generated character ? What was that ?
When has a CG character ever been introduced in a live action movie ?
I do n't know , maybe you can tell us , Jar Jar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of movies have great trailers, but Tron2 (TR2N) had both a great trailer and a great rollout.
You could barely hear the sound in the Youtube fan upload because of all the excitement among the crowd.But now you're telling me they are going to put a CG Flynn in the movie?Why not just tell us that Peter Jackson was directing it or the lightcycles can travel in curved lines?
Why would you do such a stupid thing as to ruin the illusion with a neither fully human nor fully computer generated character?What was that?
When has a CG character ever been introduced in a live action movie?
I don't know, maybe you can tell us, Jar Jar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349022</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright of Style???</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267647420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine the James Gang doing <i>Funk 44</i> (I think that was the tune, from "Rides Again"). It was a classical piece that unfortunately was written (iinm and iirc) in the 1930s. It was on the LP when the LP was new, but excised from the CD because of copyright litigation.</p><p>Excessive copyright is killing creativity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine the James Gang doing Funk 44 ( I think that was the tune , from " Rides Again " ) .
It was a classical piece that unfortunately was written ( iinm and iirc ) in the 1930s .
It was on the LP when the LP was new , but excised from the CD because of copyright litigation.Excessive copyright is killing creativity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine the James Gang doing Funk 44 (I think that was the tune, from "Rides Again").
It was a classical piece that unfortunately was written (iinm and iirc) in the 1930s.
It was on the LP when the LP was new, but excised from the CD because of copyright litigation.Excessive copyright is killing creativity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348306</id>
	<title>Didnt they already say this when...</title>
	<author>Servaas</author>
	<datestamp>1267643880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists."

Wasn't this a comment when synthesisers and computers started to seep into music?
There will always be a market for original authentic musicians. And as long as a human still presses the buttons and tunes knobs is it really AI? By that accord iTunes Genie (Or what its called) is a valid DJ.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In the future , it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists .
" Was n't this a comment when synthesisers and computers started to seep into music ?
There will always be a market for original authentic musicians .
And as long as a human still presses the buttons and tunes knobs is it really AI ?
By that accord iTunes Genie ( Or what its called ) is a valid DJ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.
"

Wasn't this a comment when synthesisers and computers started to seep into music?
There will always be a market for original authentic musicians.
And as long as a human still presses the buttons and tunes knobs is it really AI?
By that accord iTunes Genie (Or what its called) is a valid DJ.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31353154</id>
	<title>Cash cow</title>
	<author>One\_Minute\_Too\_Late</author>
	<datestamp>1267625760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Zenph has cleverly tried to duplicate the recordings of classical artists who recorded in the early parts of the 20th century. There is a valid market out there, given the poor sonic quality of many of these supposedly classic recordings. Tuning out all the hiss and crackle of Casal, Rachmaninoff or Gershwin can be a major headache. <br> <br>
That being said, I don't think that this is the end of human musicians and human recordings, and I frankly don't think all that much of these re-recordings. I'll confine myself to commenting on the Gould and Rachmaninoff. IMHO the Zenph re-recording fails to 'improve' on Gould's sonic qualities. The sound is muddier and dirtier than the cleaned-up versions Sony offers. Part of this comes from the use of a Yamaha grand; Gould preferred pianos that sounded like 'emasculated harpsichords', probably because it allowed sonic clarity. In his later recordings, Gould did tend to sing along (off-key, which is odd, considering that he had perfect pitch), but that is part of the charm of his music. The Zenph doesn't offer any new insights into the art of the piano, Gould, or Bach, and frankly is a marketing gimmick. <br> <br>
I have fewer issues with the Rachmaninoff, because his compositions were built around the modern concept of the piano, with its sonority and power. Sadly, no chills run up my spine when I listen to the recording. This hiss is gone, and I can hear all the mistakes more clearly now (there are quite a few). Pity that part can't be changed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zenph has cleverly tried to duplicate the recordings of classical artists who recorded in the early parts of the 20th century .
There is a valid market out there , given the poor sonic quality of many of these supposedly classic recordings .
Tuning out all the hiss and crackle of Casal , Rachmaninoff or Gershwin can be a major headache .
That being said , I do n't think that this is the end of human musicians and human recordings , and I frankly do n't think all that much of these re-recordings .
I 'll confine myself to commenting on the Gould and Rachmaninoff .
IMHO the Zenph re-recording fails to 'improve ' on Gould 's sonic qualities .
The sound is muddier and dirtier than the cleaned-up versions Sony offers .
Part of this comes from the use of a Yamaha grand ; Gould preferred pianos that sounded like 'emasculated harpsichords ' , probably because it allowed sonic clarity .
In his later recordings , Gould did tend to sing along ( off-key , which is odd , considering that he had perfect pitch ) , but that is part of the charm of his music .
The Zenph does n't offer any new insights into the art of the piano , Gould , or Bach , and frankly is a marketing gimmick .
I have fewer issues with the Rachmaninoff , because his compositions were built around the modern concept of the piano , with its sonority and power .
Sadly , no chills run up my spine when I listen to the recording .
This hiss is gone , and I can hear all the mistakes more clearly now ( there are quite a few ) .
Pity that part ca n't be changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zenph has cleverly tried to duplicate the recordings of classical artists who recorded in the early parts of the 20th century.
There is a valid market out there, given the poor sonic quality of many of these supposedly classic recordings.
Tuning out all the hiss and crackle of Casal, Rachmaninoff or Gershwin can be a major headache.
That being said, I don't think that this is the end of human musicians and human recordings, and I frankly don't think all that much of these re-recordings.
I'll confine myself to commenting on the Gould and Rachmaninoff.
IMHO the Zenph re-recording fails to 'improve' on Gould's sonic qualities.
The sound is muddier and dirtier than the cleaned-up versions Sony offers.
Part of this comes from the use of a Yamaha grand; Gould preferred pianos that sounded like 'emasculated harpsichords', probably because it allowed sonic clarity.
In his later recordings, Gould did tend to sing along (off-key, which is odd, considering that he had perfect pitch), but that is part of the charm of his music.
The Zenph doesn't offer any new insights into the art of the piano, Gould, or Bach, and frankly is a marketing gimmick.
I have fewer issues with the Rachmaninoff, because his compositions were built around the modern concept of the piano, with its sonority and power.
Sadly, no chills run up my spine when I listen to the recording.
This hiss is gone, and I can hear all the mistakes more clearly now (there are quite a few).
Pity that part can't be changed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348964</id>
	<title>What do you call a drummer...</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1267647240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who broke up with his girlfriend?</p><p>Homeless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who broke up with his girlfriend ? Homeless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who broke up with his girlfriend?Homeless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348736</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267645920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The vast majority of musicians make money from live performance.  This doesn't affect them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast majority of musicians make money from live performance .
This does n't affect them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast majority of musicians make money from live performance.
This doesn't affect them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31361660</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1267735800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all fun and games Till she develops an obsession for a young veritecH pilot and usEs a deComissioned super dimensionAl fortress and subliminal messages to subjugate an entire city all the while plotting to Kill the love intErest of said pIlot. Beware the promiSes of virtuAl idoLs and entertaInErs!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all fun and games Till she develops an obsession for a young veritecH pilot and usEs a deComissioned super dimensionAl fortress and subliminal messages to subjugate an entire city all the while plotting to Kill the love intErest of said pIlot .
Beware the promiSes of virtuAl idoLs and entertaInErs !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all fun and games Till she develops an obsession for a young veritecH pilot and usEs a deComissioned super dimensionAl fortress and subliminal messages to subjugate an entire city all the while plotting to Kill the love intErest of said pIlot.
Beware the promiSes of virtuAl idoLs and entertaInErs!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348550</id>
	<title>Hmm...</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1267645020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could this be used to identify plagiarism?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this be used to identify plagiarism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this be used to identify plagiarism?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350696</id>
	<title>technical success != profit</title>
	<author>EightBells</author>
	<datestamp>1267612200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_Cope" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">David Cope</a> [wikipedia.org] discovered after producing AI-generated scores which emulate classical composers so well that even musically educated listeners couldn't reliably distinguish between "real" and "generated": <a href="http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/" title="miller-mccune.com" rel="nofollow">this article</a> [miller-mccune.com] provides more detail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As David Cope [ wikipedia.org ] discovered after producing AI-generated scores which emulate classical composers so well that even musically educated listeners could n't reliably distinguish between " real " and " generated " : this article [ miller-mccune.com ] provides more detail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As David Cope [wikipedia.org] discovered after producing AI-generated scores which emulate classical composers so well that even musically educated listeners couldn't reliably distinguish between "real" and "generated": this article [miller-mccune.com] provides more detail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348460</id>
	<title>Re:Jimi Hendrix + Lady Gaga?</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1267644660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's a pretty cool idea, though.  Have you ever heard Johnny Cash's version of Soundgarden's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhEmwgzmMsM" title="youtube.com">Rusty Cage</a> [youtube.com]?  I mean, he was almost dead at that point!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a pretty cool idea , though .
Have you ever heard Johnny Cash 's version of Soundgarden 's Rusty Cage [ youtube.com ] ?
I mean , he was almost dead at that point !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a pretty cool idea, though.
Have you ever heard Johnny Cash's version of Soundgarden's Rusty Cage [youtube.com]?
I mean, he was almost dead at that point!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349328</id>
	<title>Re:A Novelty At Best</title>
	<author>Cow Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1267649040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did it matter that Rachmaninoff's [hands] were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rachmaninov.jpg" title="wikipedia.org">freakishly large</a> [wikipedia.org] (sometimes looking as long as the keys themselves)?  Will you be able to build the physics of those hands into your model and simulation?</p></div><p>Rachmaninov's hands have already been reverse engineered.<br>All a performer with standard issue hands needs is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKKlhYF53w" title="youtube.com">an assistant and a few adapters</a> [youtube.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did it matter that Rachmaninoff 's [ hands ] were freakishly large [ wikipedia.org ] ( sometimes looking as long as the keys themselves ) ?
Will you be able to build the physics of those hands into your model and simulation ? Rachmaninov 's hands have already been reverse engineered.All a performer with standard issue hands needs is an assistant and a few adapters [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did it matter that Rachmaninoff's [hands] were freakishly large [wikipedia.org] (sometimes looking as long as the keys themselves)?
Will you be able to build the physics of those hands into your model and simulation?Rachmaninov's hands have already been reverse engineered.All a performer with standard issue hands needs is an assistant and a few adapters [youtube.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348560</id>
	<title>Can an AI copyright music?</title>
	<author>paulsnx2</author>
	<datestamp>1267645080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright law is set up to assume that *someone* created the painting/movie/music/book/poem/sculpture...  If an AI creates the music completely, can it be copyrighted?  Can we claim that the person that pushed the button or clicked the mouse created something if all the decisions are programmed via AI?</p><p>Once a person has created something, then they can assign the copyright to a corporation.  BUT if there isn't a human author, how can this assignment be done legally?</p><p>I can imagine that various acts and trusts might want to claim if their profiles (or the profiles of artists whose copyrights a trust holds) are used to create the background for an AI then the music that such an AI generates is clearly a derivative work, and belongs to them.  But how would this be any different than a human doing the same thing, and clearly in the latter case the copyright belongs to the artist regardless of how steeped in the style of someone else.</p><p>Besides, if one takes this program and feeds into it music from a hundred artists, then the result is no different than any musician.  Yet an AI author has no standing in the law as an author, does it?</p><p>Thinking about this, it is nothing new.  I wonder what the court has said about previous music produced by non human sources?  I think in most cases, the recording is still done by a person who gets the credit/copyright.  But a computer doesn't even need a person to do the recording, being able to do all the tasks required all by itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright law is set up to assume that * someone * created the painting/movie/music/book/poem/sculpture... If an AI creates the music completely , can it be copyrighted ?
Can we claim that the person that pushed the button or clicked the mouse created something if all the decisions are programmed via AI ? Once a person has created something , then they can assign the copyright to a corporation .
BUT if there is n't a human author , how can this assignment be done legally ? I can imagine that various acts and trusts might want to claim if their profiles ( or the profiles of artists whose copyrights a trust holds ) are used to create the background for an AI then the music that such an AI generates is clearly a derivative work , and belongs to them .
But how would this be any different than a human doing the same thing , and clearly in the latter case the copyright belongs to the artist regardless of how steeped in the style of someone else.Besides , if one takes this program and feeds into it music from a hundred artists , then the result is no different than any musician .
Yet an AI author has no standing in the law as an author , does it ? Thinking about this , it is nothing new .
I wonder what the court has said about previous music produced by non human sources ?
I think in most cases , the recording is still done by a person who gets the credit/copyright .
But a computer does n't even need a person to do the recording , being able to do all the tasks required all by itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright law is set up to assume that *someone* created the painting/movie/music/book/poem/sculpture...  If an AI creates the music completely, can it be copyrighted?
Can we claim that the person that pushed the button or clicked the mouse created something if all the decisions are programmed via AI?Once a person has created something, then they can assign the copyright to a corporation.
BUT if there isn't a human author, how can this assignment be done legally?I can imagine that various acts and trusts might want to claim if their profiles (or the profiles of artists whose copyrights a trust holds) are used to create the background for an AI then the music that such an AI generates is clearly a derivative work, and belongs to them.
But how would this be any different than a human doing the same thing, and clearly in the latter case the copyright belongs to the artist regardless of how steeped in the style of someone else.Besides, if one takes this program and feeds into it music from a hundred artists, then the result is no different than any musician.
Yet an AI author has no standing in the law as an author, does it?Thinking about this, it is nothing new.
I wonder what the court has said about previous music produced by non human sources?
I think in most cases, the recording is still done by a person who gets the credit/copyright.
But a computer doesn't even need a person to do the recording, being able to do all the tasks required all by itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350782</id>
	<title>Re:Can an AI copyright music?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267612500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say the person who directed the software in what music to create would be granted a copyright on the result, at a guess, but it does get complicated.</p><p>Artists already use composition software frequently in the composition of their music, this is just a more clever algorithm that in some small way mimics some of the processes some writers go through already.  And software like this is going to generate a LOT of junk that you have to sift through, refine, etc.</p><p>Having said that, once this software hits the public domain and anyone can create "original" compositions in the style of their favorite artists (or blend styles), we're going to be flooded with "creative original" music in unprecedented volumes.  It could completely overwhelm our current concept of copyright.  It'd be like having the million monkeys and million keyboards, and copyrighting everything they create up to the point they hit Shakespeare.  Eventually, every pleasing tonal pattern that can exist will be covered under copyright by someone, somewhere.</p><p>Hell, I could devote a few thousand quad-core processors to doing nothing but creating works specifically designed not to match anything that is currently under copyright, release a few billion of the best for 1 dollar each on an MP3 jukebox server, and sue the living daylights out of anyone who releases a song that happens to coincide with too many notes of one of mine.  The only thing stopping someone from doing that today is that creating original works still takes brain cells, and there aren't enough of them to work fast enough to overwhelm the copyright system.  Don't think this won't happen, and it'll be sooner rather than later.</p><p>
&nbsp; I think it will lead to one of three conclusions:</p><p>1. All such works will be declared "derivative" if it could be demonstrated that any copyrighted work was fed into the algorithm, and copyright would be split between the copyright owners of the source material.  If the author recorded non-copyrighted sounds (nature, construction) and specified instruments for the computer to use, it would probably be treated as an original work.</p><p>2.  All such works are granted an original copyright and within a matter of a few decades any possible combination of notes that could be produced would have been produced and copyrighted.  Probably by people slashdotters will soon be calling "copyright trolls".</p><p>3.  The ramifications of either (1) or (2) set in and we finally start limiting copyright to its original intent - to allow a BRIEF period where the creator of a work may profit from that work.</p><p>I'm hoping for (3), but I expect we'll end up with (1) because the various entrenched copyright companies (eg. RIAA) will simply call the lawmakers they have on permanent retainer and tell them to make it so.</p><p>(1) is actually the most compatible with current copyright law.  If I write a song that incorporates elements of your songs (including chords as short as 4-5 notes) or bears significant tonal similarity to your songs, you can sue me for copyright violation in many countries.  If I use a computer to create works BASED on yours, how is that not actually a derivative work (though proving it would be infinitely harder).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say the person who directed the software in what music to create would be granted a copyright on the result , at a guess , but it does get complicated.Artists already use composition software frequently in the composition of their music , this is just a more clever algorithm that in some small way mimics some of the processes some writers go through already .
And software like this is going to generate a LOT of junk that you have to sift through , refine , etc.Having said that , once this software hits the public domain and anyone can create " original " compositions in the style of their favorite artists ( or blend styles ) , we 're going to be flooded with " creative original " music in unprecedented volumes .
It could completely overwhelm our current concept of copyright .
It 'd be like having the million monkeys and million keyboards , and copyrighting everything they create up to the point they hit Shakespeare .
Eventually , every pleasing tonal pattern that can exist will be covered under copyright by someone , somewhere.Hell , I could devote a few thousand quad-core processors to doing nothing but creating works specifically designed not to match anything that is currently under copyright , release a few billion of the best for 1 dollar each on an MP3 jukebox server , and sue the living daylights out of anyone who releases a song that happens to coincide with too many notes of one of mine .
The only thing stopping someone from doing that today is that creating original works still takes brain cells , and there are n't enough of them to work fast enough to overwhelm the copyright system .
Do n't think this wo n't happen , and it 'll be sooner rather than later .
  I think it will lead to one of three conclusions : 1 .
All such works will be declared " derivative " if it could be demonstrated that any copyrighted work was fed into the algorithm , and copyright would be split between the copyright owners of the source material .
If the author recorded non-copyrighted sounds ( nature , construction ) and specified instruments for the computer to use , it would probably be treated as an original work.2 .
All such works are granted an original copyright and within a matter of a few decades any possible combination of notes that could be produced would have been produced and copyrighted .
Probably by people slashdotters will soon be calling " copyright trolls " .3 .
The ramifications of either ( 1 ) or ( 2 ) set in and we finally start limiting copyright to its original intent - to allow a BRIEF period where the creator of a work may profit from that work.I 'm hoping for ( 3 ) , but I expect we 'll end up with ( 1 ) because the various entrenched copyright companies ( eg .
RIAA ) will simply call the lawmakers they have on permanent retainer and tell them to make it so .
( 1 ) is actually the most compatible with current copyright law .
If I write a song that incorporates elements of your songs ( including chords as short as 4-5 notes ) or bears significant tonal similarity to your songs , you can sue me for copyright violation in many countries .
If I use a computer to create works BASED on yours , how is that not actually a derivative work ( though proving it would be infinitely harder ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say the person who directed the software in what music to create would be granted a copyright on the result, at a guess, but it does get complicated.Artists already use composition software frequently in the composition of their music, this is just a more clever algorithm that in some small way mimics some of the processes some writers go through already.
And software like this is going to generate a LOT of junk that you have to sift through, refine, etc.Having said that, once this software hits the public domain and anyone can create "original" compositions in the style of their favorite artists (or blend styles), we're going to be flooded with "creative original" music in unprecedented volumes.
It could completely overwhelm our current concept of copyright.
It'd be like having the million monkeys and million keyboards, and copyrighting everything they create up to the point they hit Shakespeare.
Eventually, every pleasing tonal pattern that can exist will be covered under copyright by someone, somewhere.Hell, I could devote a few thousand quad-core processors to doing nothing but creating works specifically designed not to match anything that is currently under copyright, release a few billion of the best for 1 dollar each on an MP3 jukebox server, and sue the living daylights out of anyone who releases a song that happens to coincide with too many notes of one of mine.
The only thing stopping someone from doing that today is that creating original works still takes brain cells, and there aren't enough of them to work fast enough to overwhelm the copyright system.
Don't think this won't happen, and it'll be sooner rather than later.
  I think it will lead to one of three conclusions:1.
All such works will be declared "derivative" if it could be demonstrated that any copyrighted work was fed into the algorithm, and copyright would be split between the copyright owners of the source material.
If the author recorded non-copyrighted sounds (nature, construction) and specified instruments for the computer to use, it would probably be treated as an original work.2.
All such works are granted an original copyright and within a matter of a few decades any possible combination of notes that could be produced would have been produced and copyrighted.
Probably by people slashdotters will soon be calling "copyright trolls".3.
The ramifications of either (1) or (2) set in and we finally start limiting copyright to its original intent - to allow a BRIEF period where the creator of a work may profit from that work.I'm hoping for (3), but I expect we'll end up with (1) because the various entrenched copyright companies (eg.
RIAA) will simply call the lawmakers they have on permanent retainer and tell them to make it so.
(1) is actually the most compatible with current copyright law.
If I write a song that incorporates elements of your songs (including chords as short as 4-5 notes) or bears significant tonal similarity to your songs, you can sue me for copyright violation in many countries.
If I use a computer to create works BASED on yours, how is that not actually a derivative work (though proving it would be infinitely harder).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349156</id>
	<title>The Norm</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1267648140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         It has always been the goal of technology to eliminate the need for human labor. Music and films are an example of an area that should soon be devoid of direct human involvement.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The problem is that this is also happening across the entire economy and it is hidden from public view. Less and less people are needed in almost every form of business. This is part of the unemployment crisis that is currently troubling the US. In turn that creates a general economic mess as it erodes the tax base. It will also start to bring down business as we know it. A great example is the Post Office. The Post Office now suffers economic ruin due to email replacing snail mail. In one way that is wonderful but in another it spells big problems for items that must be manually delivered. One way or another the public will pay.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The displacement of human job functions is a great threat only because our people and our government are not mentally up to changing the construct of the world model that is fixated in their minds. There are ways to fix this growing menace. And do not think for a second that it is not a threat to all of us. For example electricity will soon be unaffordable as more and more people start to make their own power leaving large gaps in the service locations and causing higher maintenance for power lines needed to serve less and less customers. In essence technology is performing a strange form of deflation that none have predicted and few are prepared to even conceive much less act upon.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; One answer is to have the government simply send out pay checks to people who do not work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has always been the goal of technology to eliminate the need for human labor .
Music and films are an example of an area that should soon be devoid of direct human involvement .
                  The problem is that this is also happening across the entire economy and it is hidden from public view .
Less and less people are needed in almost every form of business .
This is part of the unemployment crisis that is currently troubling the US .
In turn that creates a general economic mess as it erodes the tax base .
It will also start to bring down business as we know it .
A great example is the Post Office .
The Post Office now suffers economic ruin due to email replacing snail mail .
In one way that is wonderful but in another it spells big problems for items that must be manually delivered .
One way or another the public will pay .
                The displacement of human job functions is a great threat only because our people and our government are not mentally up to changing the construct of the world model that is fixated in their minds .
There are ways to fix this growing menace .
And do not think for a second that it is not a threat to all of us .
For example electricity will soon be unaffordable as more and more people start to make their own power leaving large gaps in the service locations and causing higher maintenance for power lines needed to serve less and less customers .
In essence technology is performing a strange form of deflation that none have predicted and few are prepared to even conceive much less act upon .
              One answer is to have the government simply send out pay checks to people who do not work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         It has always been the goal of technology to eliminate the need for human labor.
Music and films are an example of an area that should soon be devoid of direct human involvement.
                  The problem is that this is also happening across the entire economy and it is hidden from public view.
Less and less people are needed in almost every form of business.
This is part of the unemployment crisis that is currently troubling the US.
In turn that creates a general economic mess as it erodes the tax base.
It will also start to bring down business as we know it.
A great example is the Post Office.
The Post Office now suffers economic ruin due to email replacing snail mail.
In one way that is wonderful but in another it spells big problems for items that must be manually delivered.
One way or another the public will pay.
                The displacement of human job functions is a great threat only because our people and our government are not mentally up to changing the construct of the world model that is fixated in their minds.
There are ways to fix this growing menace.
And do not think for a second that it is not a threat to all of us.
For example electricity will soon be unaffordable as more and more people start to make their own power leaving large gaps in the service locations and causing higher maintenance for power lines needed to serve less and less customers.
In essence technology is performing a strange form of deflation that none have predicted and few are prepared to even conceive much less act upon.
              One answer is to have the government simply send out pay checks to people who do not work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349554</id>
	<title>Melancholy Elephants</title>
	<author>alispguru</author>
	<datestamp>1267606860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spider Robinson wrote a story about what infinite copyright might do to the human race: <a href="http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html" title="spiderrobinson.com">Melancholy Elephants</a> [spiderrobinson.com].<br> <br>
Systems like this would allow people with no artistic talent of their own to strip-mine other artists' creative space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spider Robinson wrote a story about what infinite copyright might do to the human race : Melancholy Elephants [ spiderrobinson.com ] .
Systems like this would allow people with no artistic talent of their own to strip-mine other artists ' creative space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spider Robinson wrote a story about what infinite copyright might do to the human race: Melancholy Elephants [spiderrobinson.com].
Systems like this would allow people with no artistic talent of their own to strip-mine other artists' creative space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350620</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1267611840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is all ready precidence John Fogerty was sued because fantasy records claimed that "The Old Man Down The Road" had the same chorus as "Run Through The Jungle" which he recorded with CCR.  Forgerty won the case when he showed that they were similar but different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is all ready precidence John Fogerty was sued because fantasy records claimed that " The Old Man Down The Road " had the same chorus as " Run Through The Jungle " which he recorded with CCR .
Forgerty won the case when he showed that they were similar but different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is all ready precidence John Fogerty was sued because fantasy records claimed that "The Old Man Down The Road" had the same chorus as "Run Through The Jungle" which he recorded with CCR.
Forgerty won the case when he showed that they were similar but different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348246</id>
	<title>Jimi Hendrix + Lady Gaga?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267643640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga?"</i>
<p>I think I speak for everyone when I say no, no I haven't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga ?
" I think I speak for everyone when I say no , no I have n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga?
"
I think I speak for everyone when I say no, no I haven't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349578</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright of Style???</title>
	<author>pitchpipe</author>
	<datestamp>1267606980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does this mean that eventually any talented kid who manages to figure out (AKA, reverse engineer) Clapton's or Lifeson's style and sound perfectly, would be in violation of a copyright?</p></div><p>I think that would automatically make Steve Morse's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Major-Impacts-Steve-Morse/dp/B00004U05A/ref=sr\_1\_5?ie=UTF8&amp;s=music&amp;qid=1267646173&amp;sr=8-5" title="amazon.com">Major Impacts</a> [amazon.com] a copyright violator.  Check out track one for Clapton and three for Lifeson.  The album is a tribute to all of his influences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that eventually any talented kid who manages to figure out ( AKA , reverse engineer ) Clapton 's or Lifeson 's style and sound perfectly , would be in violation of a copyright ? I think that would automatically make Steve Morse 's Major Impacts [ amazon.com ] a copyright violator .
Check out track one for Clapton and three for Lifeson .
The album is a tribute to all of his influences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that eventually any talented kid who manages to figure out (AKA, reverse engineer) Clapton's or Lifeson's style and sound perfectly, would be in violation of a copyright?I think that would automatically make Steve Morse's Major Impacts [amazon.com] a copyright violator.
Check out track one for Clapton and three for Lifeson.
The album is a tribute to all of his influences.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348232</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1267643640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article reminded me of the "robotic" intergalactic megastar singer in Macross Plus.  Still, I think humans will always have a place when it comes to music.  Even music that is entirely electronic <a href="http://www.livingwithanerd.com/music" title="livingwithanerd.com">(such as my own)</a> [livingwithanerd.com] still requires a human touch...in my case, each of my tracks is supposed to evoke certain imagry and emotional responses...something that a non-organic system simply can't replicate.</p><p>Until we are able to emulate not only the way organics process sounds but the <b>emotion</b> those sounds bring about, humans will always have a place in the creation of music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article reminded me of the " robotic " intergalactic megastar singer in Macross Plus .
Still , I think humans will always have a place when it comes to music .
Even music that is entirely electronic ( such as my own ) [ livingwithanerd.com ] still requires a human touch...in my case , each of my tracks is supposed to evoke certain imagry and emotional responses...something that a non-organic system simply ca n't replicate.Until we are able to emulate not only the way organics process sounds but the emotion those sounds bring about , humans will always have a place in the creation of music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article reminded me of the "robotic" intergalactic megastar singer in Macross Plus.
Still, I think humans will always have a place when it comes to music.
Even music that is entirely electronic (such as my own) [livingwithanerd.com] still requires a human touch...in my case, each of my tracks is supposed to evoke certain imagry and emotional responses...something that a non-organic system simply can't replicate.Until we are able to emulate not only the way organics process sounds but the emotion those sounds bring about, humans will always have a place in the creation of music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31356830</id>
	<title>Re:A Novelty At Best</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1267710240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and in the process, the synths lost their distinctive sounds, and the 80s can no longer be recreated...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and in the process , the synths lost their distinctive sounds , and the 80s can no longer be recreated.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and in the process, the synths lost their distinctive sounds, and the 80s can no longer be recreated...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31352654</id>
	<title>Just as I've suspected</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1267621920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've suspected for some time now that the recording industry would like to remove all these pesky musicians from the process of making money, and now I see the proof. No, I'm not joking. Look at the crap that's playing on the radio right now: music that sounds like an old Nintendo game, with vocals that have been processed to the point where they sound like a cheap voice synthesizer from the 80's. It's not much of a stretch that if this current crop of crap will fly, then why not 100\% computer composed and synthesized music?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've suspected for some time now that the recording industry would like to remove all these pesky musicians from the process of making money , and now I see the proof .
No , I 'm not joking .
Look at the crap that 's playing on the radio right now : music that sounds like an old Nintendo game , with vocals that have been processed to the point where they sound like a cheap voice synthesizer from the 80 's .
It 's not much of a stretch that if this current crop of crap will fly , then why not 100 \ % computer composed and synthesized music ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've suspected for some time now that the recording industry would like to remove all these pesky musicians from the process of making money, and now I see the proof.
No, I'm not joking.
Look at the crap that's playing on the radio right now: music that sounds like an old Nintendo game, with vocals that have been processed to the point where they sound like a cheap voice synthesizer from the 80's.
It's not much of a stretch that if this current crop of crap will fly, then why not 100\% computer composed and synthesized music?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31353294</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267627140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be inclined to disagree; take Lady Gaga for example. Lady Gaga's brilliance is that she doesn't do it for the sake of art. Rather her music is specifically designed to be popular--close listening to it gives the impression she distilled all the aspects that make a popular song and then rearranged them as she saw fit. Throw in that she is a very fine technician (singer, choreography, etc), and you have the top act of the decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be inclined to disagree ; take Lady Gaga for example .
Lady Gaga 's brilliance is that she does n't do it for the sake of art .
Rather her music is specifically designed to be popular--close listening to it gives the impression she distilled all the aspects that make a popular song and then rearranged them as she saw fit .
Throw in that she is a very fine technician ( singer , choreography , etc ) , and you have the top act of the decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be inclined to disagree; take Lady Gaga for example.
Lady Gaga's brilliance is that she doesn't do it for the sake of art.
Rather her music is specifically designed to be popular--close listening to it gives the impression she distilled all the aspects that make a popular song and then rearranged them as she saw fit.
Throw in that she is a very fine technician (singer, choreography, etc), and you have the top act of the decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348786</id>
	<title>Looker!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267646220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone remember this movie?</p><p>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone remember this movie ? http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone remember this movie?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348624</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267645380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the greats admit that they aren't as good as the originals. They agree that they just took something amazing, and put their own spin on it.</p><p>Then you get people like Kanye (let me finish) who think they are the most amazing person on the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the greats admit that they are n't as good as the originals .
They agree that they just took something amazing , and put their own spin on it.Then you get people like Kanye ( let me finish ) who think they are the most amazing person on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the greats admit that they aren't as good as the originals.
They agree that they just took something amazing, and put their own spin on it.Then you get people like Kanye (let me finish) who think they are the most amazing person on the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31352088</id>
	<title>New Animated Star Trek?</title>
	<author>Sans\_A\_Cause</author>
	<datestamp>1267618680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've often wondered if they couldn't do this sort of thing with DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, and Majel Barrett's voices to create a new animated series of TOS.</p><p>I watched the complete ST:TAS last fall and was amazed at the level of sophistication it had with respect to the writing, featuring the likes of David Gerrold and Larry Niven.  I'd like to see it tried again with other SF writers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've often wondered if they could n't do this sort of thing with DeForest Kelley , James Doohan , and Majel Barrett 's voices to create a new animated series of TOS.I watched the complete ST : TAS last fall and was amazed at the level of sophistication it had with respect to the writing , featuring the likes of David Gerrold and Larry Niven .
I 'd like to see it tried again with other SF writers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've often wondered if they couldn't do this sort of thing with DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, and Majel Barrett's voices to create a new animated series of TOS.I watched the complete ST:TAS last fall and was amazed at the level of sophistication it had with respect to the writing, featuring the likes of David Gerrold and Larry Niven.
I'd like to see it tried again with other SF writers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350386</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1267610700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think if you can survive without eating then maybe I would see your point, otherwise I hope it's just a joke that I don't get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think if you can survive without eating then maybe I would see your point , otherwise I hope it 's just a joke that I do n't get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think if you can survive without eating then maybe I would see your point, otherwise I hope it's just a joke that I don't get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349618</id>
	<title>Re:A Novelty At Best</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267607160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who writes music... this of no use to any real writer. As a programmer, I find this cool, but I don't think it's useful at all. And Jimmy Hendrix wouldn't cover Lady Gaga, why would a rock artist cover some crappy pop artist who just writes music for money?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:\</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who writes music... this of no use to any real writer .
As a programmer , I find this cool , but I do n't think it 's useful at all .
And Jimmy Hendrix would n't cover Lady Gaga , why would a rock artist cover some crappy pop artist who just writes music for money ?
: \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who writes music... this of no use to any real writer.
As a programmer, I find this cool, but I don't think it's useful at all.
And Jimmy Hendrix wouldn't cover Lady Gaga, why would a rock artist cover some crappy pop artist who just writes music for money?
:\</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349126</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Superdarion</author>
	<datestamp>1267648020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We would also need some drug addiction emulation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We would also need some drug addiction emulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We would also need some drug addiction emulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348566</id>
	<title>Re:Jimi Hendrix + Lady Gaga?</title>
	<author>MonsterTrimble</author>
	<datestamp>1267645080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, Hendrix covering 'Bad Romance' could be cool. I'd rather hear Lady Gaga do a lounge singer version of 'Sympathy for the Devil' though.<br>
<br>
And no, I'm no kidding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Hendrix covering 'Bad Romance ' could be cool .
I 'd rather hear Lady Gaga do a lounge singer version of 'Sympathy for the Devil ' though .
And no , I 'm no kidding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Hendrix covering 'Bad Romance' could be cool.
I'd rather hear Lady Gaga do a lounge singer version of 'Sympathy for the Devil' though.
And no, I'm no kidding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350434</id>
	<title>Re:How to alienate fans</title>
	<author>wintercolby</author>
	<datestamp>1267611000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The big difference between Jeff Bridges in Tron 2.0 and Fred Astair/John Wayne is that Jeff Bridges is STILL ALIVE.  It won't be sick, because they aren't using a person's name and works in a way that that person had never intended after they can no longer contest it or profit off of it.  It will only be sick and wrong if they use it without his permission.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big difference between Jeff Bridges in Tron 2.0 and Fred Astair/John Wayne is that Jeff Bridges is STILL ALIVE .
It wo n't be sick , because they are n't using a person 's name and works in a way that that person had never intended after they can no longer contest it or profit off of it .
It will only be sick and wrong if they use it without his permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big difference between Jeff Bridges in Tron 2.0 and Fred Astair/John Wayne is that Jeff Bridges is STILL ALIVE.
It won't be sick, because they aren't using a person's name and works in a way that that person had never intended after they can no longer contest it or profit off of it.
It will only be sick and wrong if they use it without his permission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350312</id>
	<title>Re:Little Heroes</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267610280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, they are having trouble convincing people to buy this "music", since the stuff the APs produce, while conforming to the desired demographic parameters, is vapid, uninspired and boring.<br></i><br>Sounds like today's music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , they are having trouble convincing people to buy this " music " , since the stuff the APs produce , while conforming to the desired demographic parameters , is vapid , uninspired and boring.Sounds like today 's music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, they are having trouble convincing people to buy this "music", since the stuff the APs produce, while conforming to the desired demographic parameters, is vapid, uninspired and boring.Sounds like today's music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348298</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267643880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it will be interesting when an estate tries to sue someone for producing something "in the style of" a particular dead artist. It'll totally be worth it if it gets rid of the Nickleback derivatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it will be interesting when an estate tries to sue someone for producing something " in the style of " a particular dead artist .
It 'll totally be worth it if it gets rid of the Nickleback derivatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it will be interesting when an estate tries to sue someone for producing something "in the style of" a particular dead artist.
It'll totally be worth it if it gets rid of the Nickleback derivatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349260</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>iPhr0stByt3</author>
	<datestamp>1267648620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>nice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>nice ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nice ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348416</id>
	<title>There is no such thing as artificial inteligence</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267644480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's real intelligence; the intelligence of the engineers who designed the computer, and the programmers who write the apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's real intelligence ; the intelligence of the engineers who designed the computer , and the programmers who write the apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's real intelligence; the intelligence of the engineers who designed the computer, and the programmers who write the apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348214</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267643520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its like new artists will have to be creative and create new musical styles.  IE, nothing changes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its like new artists will have to be creative and create new musical styles .
IE , nothing changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its like new artists will have to be creative and create new musical styles.
IE, nothing changes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348988</id>
	<title>Re:Didnt they already say this when...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1267647360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>By that accord iTunes Genie (Or what its called) is a valid DJ.</i> It's called <a href="http://theappleblog.com/2009/09/10/itunes-9-genius-its-in-the-mix/" title="theappleblog.com">Genius</a> [theappleblog.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>By that accord iTunes Genie ( Or what its called ) is a valid DJ .
It 's called Genius [ theappleblog.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By that accord iTunes Genie (Or what its called) is a valid DJ.
It's called Genius [theappleblog.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348870</id>
	<title>since you asked...</title>
	<author>rozz</author>
	<datestamp>1267646700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors?</p> </div><p> yes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. both dead and alive ones<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and some 3D rendered ones too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. the more the merrier</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists</p></div><p> so? if you can't play the guitar better than a dead guy, why should you make any money?
<br> plus, a decent guitar player should always be able to make some bikinis "dissapear"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. that not enough as a reward?</p><p>and if guitars and guitar players dissapear forever so what?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this goes on , will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors ?
yes .. both dead and alive ones ... and some 3D rendered ones too .. the more the merrierIn the future , it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists so ?
if you ca n't play the guitar better than a dead guy , why should you make any money ?
plus , a decent guitar player should always be able to make some bikinis " dissapear " .. that not enough as a reward ? and if guitars and guitar players dissapear forever so what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors?
yes .. both dead and alive ones ... and some 3D rendered ones too .. the more the merrierIn the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists so?
if you can't play the guitar better than a dead guy, why should you make any money?
plus, a decent guitar player should always be able to make some bikinis "dissapear" .. that not enough as a reward?and if guitars and guitar players dissapear forever so what?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348414</id>
	<title>Will Jerry have change his bands name...</title>
	<author>mswhippingboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267644480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>to the grateful un-dead so as not to be confused with The Dead?</htmltext>
<tokenext>to the grateful un-dead so as not to be confused with The Dead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to the grateful un-dead so as not to be confused with The Dead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350544</id>
	<title>Re:A Novelty At Best</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1267611540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This will be a novelty and one I look forward to enjoying it as such. But nothing more. No more a replacement for music than grand pianos were replaced by early synthesizers. You might be able to convince me at some point it will suffice (like a live piano performance may employ an electric piano) but I dare say the parameters are far too many and far too complicated.</p></div><p>It's worth noting that virtually nothing in the Top 40 employs a grand piano, and Rachmaninoff has never charted. And that, ultimately, is all the music industry cares about. If it gets played on the radio and sells CDs or downloads, that's all that matters. And it's not like there aren't plenty of real human artists with marginal skills and little talent making plenty of money for the music industry, so it's rather questionable whether the bulk of music consumers would care (or even be able to tell) if an entirely synthetic "performer" didn't achieve virtuoso-level performance.</p><p>So while I think your objections are, at present, quite valid -- though I am skeptical that there is anything humans will be able to do better than machines in the long run -- they're also quite irrelevant as far as popular music goes. Conversely, even a superhuman electronic musician is unlikely to affect the fine art end of the spectrum because the customers there go to live performances to hear real humans or buy recordings of them by preference.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be a novelty and one I look forward to enjoying it as such .
But nothing more .
No more a replacement for music than grand pianos were replaced by early synthesizers .
You might be able to convince me at some point it will suffice ( like a live piano performance may employ an electric piano ) but I dare say the parameters are far too many and far too complicated.It 's worth noting that virtually nothing in the Top 40 employs a grand piano , and Rachmaninoff has never charted .
And that , ultimately , is all the music industry cares about .
If it gets played on the radio and sells CDs or downloads , that 's all that matters .
And it 's not like there are n't plenty of real human artists with marginal skills and little talent making plenty of money for the music industry , so it 's rather questionable whether the bulk of music consumers would care ( or even be able to tell ) if an entirely synthetic " performer " did n't achieve virtuoso-level performance.So while I think your objections are , at present , quite valid -- though I am skeptical that there is anything humans will be able to do better than machines in the long run -- they 're also quite irrelevant as far as popular music goes .
Conversely , even a superhuman electronic musician is unlikely to affect the fine art end of the spectrum because the customers there go to live performances to hear real humans or buy recordings of them by preference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be a novelty and one I look forward to enjoying it as such.
But nothing more.
No more a replacement for music than grand pianos were replaced by early synthesizers.
You might be able to convince me at some point it will suffice (like a live piano performance may employ an electric piano) but I dare say the parameters are far too many and far too complicated.It's worth noting that virtually nothing in the Top 40 employs a grand piano, and Rachmaninoff has never charted.
And that, ultimately, is all the music industry cares about.
If it gets played on the radio and sells CDs or downloads, that's all that matters.
And it's not like there aren't plenty of real human artists with marginal skills and little talent making plenty of money for the music industry, so it's rather questionable whether the bulk of music consumers would care (or even be able to tell) if an entirely synthetic "performer" didn't achieve virtuoso-level performance.So while I think your objections are, at present, quite valid -- though I am skeptical that there is anything humans will be able to do better than machines in the long run -- they're also quite irrelevant as far as popular music goes.
Conversely, even a superhuman electronic musician is unlikely to affect the fine art end of the spectrum because the customers there go to live performances to hear real humans or buy recordings of them by preference.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348338</id>
	<title>With all the copyright nonsense going on...</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1267644060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.</p></div><p>With all the copyright nonsense going on how is this any different than in the present?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the future , it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.With all the copyright nonsense going on how is this any different than in the present ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.With all the copyright nonsense going on how is this any different than in the present?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348324</id>
	<title>Hendrix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267644000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga?</i> </p><p>With semen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga ?
With semen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga?
With semen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348514</id>
	<title>When 10's of thousands of screaming fans...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267644900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When 10's of thousands of screaming fans pile into a local stadium to watch a computer shred in the style of Jimi Hendrix... then I'll be concerned.</p><p>Until then, music is starting to return to it's roots... it's a PERFORMING art and is meant to be an experience not just background noise.</p><p>Sure people will always listen to music, but eventually musicians will become rich by putting on stage shows and recordings will merely help them develop a following.  It's already trending this way with the rise in popularity of indy music, the increase in "illegal" music downloads, and recent stories I have read that say musicians are making more than ever on their tours.  (<a href="http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/" title="timesonline.co.uk">http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/</a> [timesonline.co.uk])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When 10 's of thousands of screaming fans pile into a local stadium to watch a computer shred in the style of Jimi Hendrix... then I 'll be concerned.Until then , music is starting to return to it 's roots... it 's a PERFORMING art and is meant to be an experience not just background noise.Sure people will always listen to music , but eventually musicians will become rich by putting on stage shows and recordings will merely help them develop a following .
It 's already trending this way with the rise in popularity of indy music , the increase in " illegal " music downloads , and recent stories I have read that say musicians are making more than ever on their tours .
( http : //labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/ [ timesonline.co.uk ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When 10's of thousands of screaming fans pile into a local stadium to watch a computer shred in the style of Jimi Hendrix... then I'll be concerned.Until then, music is starting to return to it's roots... it's a PERFORMING art and is meant to be an experience not just background noise.Sure people will always listen to music, but eventually musicians will become rich by putting on stage shows and recordings will merely help them develop a following.
It's already trending this way with the rise in popularity of indy music, the increase in "illegal" music downloads, and recent stories I have read that say musicians are making more than ever on their tours.
(http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/ [timesonline.co.uk])</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350568</id>
	<title>Re:Can an AI copyright music?</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1267611600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not fan of copyright and not a fan of free market, but in this particular case, I think the market will deal with it. If anyone can run the AI to produce e.g. music equivalent to Mozart or any dead author, then the price of such music decreases to the point where this is basically irrelevant. Even if such a corporation retain copyrights to that music, they couldn't sell it for more than market price. It's no longer a monopoly, because this music is substitutable very well by another AI music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not fan of copyright and not a fan of free market , but in this particular case , I think the market will deal with it .
If anyone can run the AI to produce e.g .
music equivalent to Mozart or any dead author , then the price of such music decreases to the point where this is basically irrelevant .
Even if such a corporation retain copyrights to that music , they could n't sell it for more than market price .
It 's no longer a monopoly , because this music is substitutable very well by another AI music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not fan of copyright and not a fan of free market, but in this particular case, I think the market will deal with it.
If anyone can run the AI to produce e.g.
music equivalent to Mozart or any dead author, then the price of such music decreases to the point where this is basically irrelevant.
Even if such a corporation retain copyrights to that music, they couldn't sell it for more than market price.
It's no longer a monopoly, because this music is substitutable very well by another AI music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31352148</id>
	<title>It's just music...</title>
	<author>Simonetta</author>
	<datestamp>1267619040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" models their 'musical personalities' to create new recordings,"</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Anyone who can get $10.7 MILLION dollars on the basis of such a flimsy claim deserves respect for their bullshitting ability.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; If you want to know what Lady Gaga (who the fuck is she?) would sound like if she were 'musically repersonalized' by Space Captain James T. Hendrix, then take her recordings (I assume that she is some kind of recording 'artist' since she has been on the cover of Rolling Stone) and run them through a flanger, phase shifter, distortion unit, and wah-wah pedal.  Play it really loud, take a shit load of mescaline, and -voila- you have Hendrix playing in the style of 'Lady Gaga' (who is this creature and why is she in the entertainment media?).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; In all seriousness,... It's just music.  It's not a cure for cancer.  It's not a car that get 100 miles to a gallon of gas.  It's not a cure for AIDS or weaponized smallpox.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; It's just...fucking...music.  Stop pretending that it's so serious.  And don't give them any more money.  Jeez, 10 million fucking dollars for this horseshit!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" models their 'musical personalities ' to create new recordings , "     Anyone who can get $ 10.7 MILLION dollars on the basis of such a flimsy claim deserves respect for their bullshitting ability .
    If you want to know what Lady Gaga ( who the fuck is she ?
) would sound like if she were 'musically repersonalized ' by Space Captain James T. Hendrix , then take her recordings ( I assume that she is some kind of recording 'artist ' since she has been on the cover of Rolling Stone ) and run them through a flanger , phase shifter , distortion unit , and wah-wah pedal .
Play it really loud , take a shit load of mescaline , and -voila- you have Hendrix playing in the style of 'Lady Gaga ' ( who is this creature and why is she in the entertainment media ? ) .
    In all seriousness,... It 's just music .
It 's not a cure for cancer .
It 's not a car that get 100 miles to a gallon of gas .
It 's not a cure for AIDS or weaponized smallpox .
    It 's just...fucking...music .
Stop pretending that it 's so serious .
And do n't give them any more money .
Jeez , 10 million fucking dollars for this horseshit ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" models their 'musical personalities' to create new recordings,"
    Anyone who can get $10.7 MILLION dollars on the basis of such a flimsy claim deserves respect for their bullshitting ability.
    If you want to know what Lady Gaga (who the fuck is she?
) would sound like if she were 'musically repersonalized' by Space Captain James T. Hendrix, then take her recordings (I assume that she is some kind of recording 'artist' since she has been on the cover of Rolling Stone) and run them through a flanger, phase shifter, distortion unit, and wah-wah pedal.
Play it really loud, take a shit load of mescaline, and -voila- you have Hendrix playing in the style of 'Lady Gaga' (who is this creature and why is she in the entertainment media?).
    In all seriousness,... It's just music.
It's not a cure for cancer.
It's not a car that get 100 miles to a gallon of gas.
It's not a cure for AIDS or weaponized smallpox.
    It's just...fucking...music.
Stop pretending that it's so serious.
And don't give them any more money.
Jeez, 10 million fucking dollars for this horseshit!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348662</id>
	<title>Do not want.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267645620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if this violates any laws (or morals, for that matter), but it just rubs me the wrong way.  If I were a musician I would not want somebody else generating music using my synthesized voice and style, as if it had received my stamp of approval or something.  You can't use someone's likeness to promote a cause without their endorsement; why should other forms of media be any different?  Maybe a song or two for things like satire (i.e. fair use), but to do an entire studio album in an artist's simulated voice and style?  No thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if this violates any laws ( or morals , for that matter ) , but it just rubs me the wrong way .
If I were a musician I would not want somebody else generating music using my synthesized voice and style , as if it had received my stamp of approval or something .
You ca n't use someone 's likeness to promote a cause without their endorsement ; why should other forms of media be any different ?
Maybe a song or two for things like satire ( i.e .
fair use ) , but to do an entire studio album in an artist 's simulated voice and style ?
No thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if this violates any laws (or morals, for that matter), but it just rubs me the wrong way.
If I were a musician I would not want somebody else generating music using my synthesized voice and style, as if it had received my stamp of approval or something.
You can't use someone's likeness to promote a cause without their endorsement; why should other forms of media be any different?
Maybe a song or two for things like satire (i.e.
fair use), but to do an entire studio album in an artist's simulated voice and style?
No thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348448</id>
	<title>Artificial intelligence isn't changing music;</title>
	<author>musicalmicah</author>
	<datestamp>1267644600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People with artificial intelligence are changing music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People with artificial intelligence are changing music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People with artificial intelligence are changing music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350462</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1267611120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And programmers do so for the fun of coding and should not be compensated either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And programmers do so for the fun of coding and should not be compensated either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And programmers do so for the fun of coding and should not be compensated either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31352132</id>
	<title>Don't let 4chan get a hold of this software.</title>
	<author>bguiz</author>
	<datestamp>1267618920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't let 4chan get a hold of this software - lest they set upon the world a series of abominations that is a Rick Astley cover of all known songs!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't let 4chan get a hold of this software - lest they set upon the world a series of abominations that is a Rick Astley cover of all known songs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't let 4chan get a hold of this software - lest they set upon the world a series of abominations that is a Rick Astley cover of all known songs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349108</id>
	<title>I got the name for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267647900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zombie Music</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zombie Music</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zombie Music</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242</id>
	<title>Good music comes from PAIN.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267643640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best music comes from PAIN. The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.</p><p>Software will never likely be able to model this raw emotional hurt, and thus will likely never be able to make truly moving music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best music comes from PAIN .
The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.Software will never likely be able to model this raw emotional hurt , and thus will likely never be able to make truly moving music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best music comes from PAIN.
The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.Software will never likely be able to model this raw emotional hurt, and thus will likely never be able to make truly moving music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349472</id>
	<title>Vocaloid?</title>
	<author>Raptor851</author>
	<datestamp>1267649700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't read the full story from at work here, but these guys need to get together with Yamaha.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocaloid" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocaloid</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't read the full story from at work here , but these guys need to get together with Yamaha .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocaloid [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't read the full story from at work here, but these guys need to get together with Yamaha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocaloid [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350216</id>
	<title>Re:When 10's of thousands of screaming fans...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267609860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, except some artists who "perform" onstage are lip-syncing and faking it to previously-recorded tracks, to ensure that their performances are flawless.  I expect there are plenty of others who actually do it and just haven't been caught at it.  Yet.</p><p>In some cases, as for example the opening to the Beijing Olympics, the performer on stage wasn't even the same person who actually recorded the original song.</p><p>It neither started nor stopped with Milli Vanilli (sp?).</p><p>So thousands of screaming fans are piling into major venues to watch someone play at stroking at a guitar and moving their lips in silence in front of a dead mic while a computer shreds in their style today.</p><p>So what's the difference?  The fact that a human has sung the song once in a studio?  The fact that the person who originally sung it is playing the role of marionette to their own recordings (or in some cases not even that)?  You might as well put a robot out there to make sure all the dance moves are perfect, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , except some artists who " perform " onstage are lip-syncing and faking it to previously-recorded tracks , to ensure that their performances are flawless .
I expect there are plenty of others who actually do it and just have n't been caught at it .
Yet.In some cases , as for example the opening to the Beijing Olympics , the performer on stage was n't even the same person who actually recorded the original song.It neither started nor stopped with Milli Vanilli ( sp ?
) .So thousands of screaming fans are piling into major venues to watch someone play at stroking at a guitar and moving their lips in silence in front of a dead mic while a computer shreds in their style today.So what 's the difference ?
The fact that a human has sung the song once in a studio ?
The fact that the person who originally sung it is playing the role of marionette to their own recordings ( or in some cases not even that ) ?
You might as well put a robot out there to make sure all the dance moves are perfect , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, except some artists who "perform" onstage are lip-syncing and faking it to previously-recorded tracks, to ensure that their performances are flawless.
I expect there are plenty of others who actually do it and just haven't been caught at it.
Yet.In some cases, as for example the opening to the Beijing Olympics, the performer on stage wasn't even the same person who actually recorded the original song.It neither started nor stopped with Milli Vanilli (sp?
).So thousands of screaming fans are piling into major venues to watch someone play at stroking at a guitar and moving their lips in silence in front of a dead mic while a computer shreds in their style today.So what's the difference?
The fact that a human has sung the song once in a studio?
The fact that the person who originally sung it is playing the role of marionette to their own recordings (or in some cases not even that)?
You might as well put a robot out there to make sure all the dance moves are perfect, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348878</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>hrvatska</author>
	<datestamp>1267646760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't recall the who it was, but I once heard an interview where a musician mentioned being sued by the company that bought the rights to their past songs for their new songs being too close in style to their old material. I think musician said he won the suit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't recall the who it was , but I once heard an interview where a musician mentioned being sued by the company that bought the rights to their past songs for their new songs being too close in style to their old material .
I think musician said he won the suit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't recall the who it was, but I once heard an interview where a musician mentioned being sued by the company that bought the rights to their past songs for their new songs being too close in style to their old material.
I think musician said he won the suit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349496</id>
	<title>Concerts</title>
	<author>1000101</author>
	<datestamp>1267649820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors? In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.</i>
<p>
There is plenty of money to be made in the multi-billion dollar live music industry. Kind of hard to make money there when you're dead.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this goes on , will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors ?
In the future , it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists .
There is plenty of money to be made in the multi-billion dollar live music industry .
Kind of hard to make money there when you 're dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors?
In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.
There is plenty of money to be made in the multi-billion dollar live music industry.
Kind of hard to make money there when you're dead.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348866</id>
	<title>Re:Didnt they already say this when...</title>
	<author>pcolaman</author>
	<datestamp>1267646700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But think of the benefits.  We can preserve such classics as Ice Ice Baby, which was a pioneer song that was flush with originality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But think of the benefits .
We can preserve such classics as Ice Ice Baby , which was a pioneer song that was flush with originality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But think of the benefits.
We can preserve such classics as Ice Ice Baby, which was a pioneer song that was flush with originality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349482</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>robkill</author>
	<datestamp>1267649760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's no worse than Fantasy records suing John Fogerty when he recorded "The Old Man Down the Road" for sounding too much like Creedence Clearwater Revival.
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty\_v.\_Fantasy" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty\_v.\_Fantasy</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no worse than Fantasy records suing John Fogerty when he recorded " The Old Man Down the Road " for sounding too much like Creedence Clearwater Revival .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty \ _v. \ _Fantasy [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no worse than Fantasy records suing John Fogerty when he recorded "The Old Man Down the Road" for sounding too much like Creedence Clearwater Revival.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty\_v.\_Fantasy [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348620</id>
	<title>Live music's death greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267645380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an awful lot of live music out there.
Check out the big blue room with the bright light
in it.  Actually, check it out when the bright light
has been turned off.</p><p>Those who are actually making money playing their
instruments in front of audiences will not be hurt
by this technology, not for the forseeable future.
Even if a lifelike animatronic robot could fool you
(we're a long way from that), people would rather see...
people!  At least, until the Robot's Rights Movement
succeeds.  We're a long way from that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an awful lot of live music out there .
Check out the big blue room with the bright light in it .
Actually , check it out when the bright light has been turned off.Those who are actually making money playing their instruments in front of audiences will not be hurt by this technology , not for the forseeable future .
Even if a lifelike animatronic robot could fool you ( we 're a long way from that ) , people would rather see.. . people ! At least , until the Robot 's Rights Movement succeeds .
We 're a long way from that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an awful lot of live music out there.
Check out the big blue room with the bright light
in it.
Actually, check it out when the bright light
has been turned off.Those who are actually making money playing their
instruments in front of audiences will not be hurt
by this technology, not for the forseeable future.
Even if a lifelike animatronic robot could fool you
(we're a long way from that), people would rather see...
people!  At least, until the Robot's Rights Movement
succeeds.
We're a long way from that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350750</id>
	<title>harder to make money playing guitar?</title>
	<author>NoBozo99</author>
	<datestamp>1267612380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt it. How this will play out is commercial interests will drag out the dead artists until the public gets tired of it. There will be a backlash against all automated dead guy music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt it .
How this will play out is commercial interests will drag out the dead artists until the public gets tired of it .
There will be a backlash against all automated dead guy music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt it.
How this will play out is commercial interests will drag out the dead artists until the public gets tired of it.
There will be a backlash against all automated dead guy music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31358410</id>
	<title>Re:A Novelty At Best</title>
	<author>BlueGMan</author>
	<datestamp>1267720920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>   While attending University of N Fla for my CS degree in the early 90s, Dr. Chua, one of my professors, had a side hobby project training neural nets with music. One of his nets he trained with every Beatle song. During one of our ACM meetings he played "original" compositions by the neural net. I have to say a few of them were horrific, however 1 or 2 were actually pretty good and they DID sound like the beatles but not like ANY specific beatle's song.

This was nearly 20 years ago, so I can only imagine where this technology is today. It definitely raises the question regarding copyright, ownership and prior works???</htmltext>
<tokenext>While attending University of N Fla for my CS degree in the early 90s , Dr. Chua , one of my professors , had a side hobby project training neural nets with music .
One of his nets he trained with every Beatle song .
During one of our ACM meetings he played " original " compositions by the neural net .
I have to say a few of them were horrific , however 1 or 2 were actually pretty good and they DID sound like the beatles but not like ANY specific beatle 's song .
This was nearly 20 years ago , so I can only imagine where this technology is today .
It definitely raises the question regarding copyright , ownership and prior works ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   While attending University of N Fla for my CS degree in the early 90s, Dr. Chua, one of my professors, had a side hobby project training neural nets with music.
One of his nets he trained with every Beatle song.
During one of our ACM meetings he played "original" compositions by the neural net.
I have to say a few of them were horrific, however 1 or 2 were actually pretty good and they DID sound like the beatles but not like ANY specific beatle's song.
This was nearly 20 years ago, so I can only imagine where this technology is today.
It definitely raises the question regarding copyright, ownership and prior works??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348738</id>
	<title>This technology has been around since 1996!</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1267645920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you think they managed to release the last five 2Pac albums? (Soon to be six!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you think they managed to release the last five 2Pac albums ?
( Soon to be six !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you think they managed to release the last five 2Pac albums?
(Soon to be six!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348724</id>
	<title>Re:Can an AI copyright music?</title>
	<author>obliv!on</author>
	<datestamp>1267645860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think that's a correct interpretation of copyright law.<br> <br>

"In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author." from <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf" title="copyright.gov" rel="nofollow">LOC copyright circular</a> [copyright.gov] <br> <br>

So if work for hire allows for corporations to create and author copyright materials then why wouldn't a corporation be able to author the copyright of the output of this sort of program?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that 's a correct interpretation of copyright law .
" In the case of works made for hire , the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author .
" from LOC copyright circular [ copyright.gov ] So if work for hire allows for corporations to create and author copyright materials then why would n't a corporation be able to author the copyright of the output of this sort of program ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that's a correct interpretation of copyright law.
"In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author.
" from LOC copyright circular [copyright.gov]  

So if work for hire allows for corporations to create and author copyright materials then why wouldn't a corporation be able to author the copyright of the output of this sort of program?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349976</id>
	<title>With the clever plot tricks they always pull</title>
	<author>lmnfrs</author>
	<datestamp>1267608660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can only imagine the wondrous films that will start to come out of the porn industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can only imagine the wondrous films that will start to come out of the porn industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can only imagine the wondrous films that will start to come out of the porn industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348462</id>
	<title>Re:Good music comes from PAIN.</title>
	<author>jason.sweet</author>
	<datestamp>1267644660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The best music comes from PAIN. The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.</p></div><p>They could write the software in COBOL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best music comes from PAIN .
The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.They could write the software in COBOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best music comes from PAIN.
The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.They could write the software in COBOL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349670</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>StormWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1267607460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should a "true artist" not need compensation?  Everyone needs to be able to make a living.  If one chooses to excel at the art of music, it takes years of dedication to the craft to get very good at it.  Even Bach, Beethoven and Mozart were compensated by wealthy benefactors for their creations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should a " true artist " not need compensation ?
Everyone needs to be able to make a living .
If one chooses to excel at the art of music , it takes years of dedication to the craft to get very good at it .
Even Bach , Beethoven and Mozart were compensated by wealthy benefactors for their creations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should a "true artist" not need compensation?
Everyone needs to be able to make a living.
If one chooses to excel at the art of music, it takes years of dedication to the craft to get very good at it.
Even Bach, Beethoven and Mozart were compensated by wealthy benefactors for their creations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348284</id>
	<title>Blah....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267643820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't care less about big studios, I don't pay for music anyways. thanks BitTorrent!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't care less about big studios , I do n't pay for music anyways .
thanks BitTorrent !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't care less about big studios, I don't pay for music anyways.
thanks BitTorrent!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349214</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1267648440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A true artist DOES need compensation and deserves it.  All of the time and money put into lessons and practice deserves retribution.  Having the nerve to put yourself in front a crowd has a lot of value.  No one asks a doctor to care for patients for free because a true doctor should do it for the love of it.  All of these bands that play these "pay to play" venues are absolute suckers.  They are actually paying for the club owners advertising costs.  On the flip side, all of the artists that are multi-millionaires deserve every penny.  Think about how many lives they've had a positive impact on.

<br>
<br>
If a musician has decent material that deserves money, then they should find someone who can effectively market their work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A true artist DOES need compensation and deserves it .
All of the time and money put into lessons and practice deserves retribution .
Having the nerve to put yourself in front a crowd has a lot of value .
No one asks a doctor to care for patients for free because a true doctor should do it for the love of it .
All of these bands that play these " pay to play " venues are absolute suckers .
They are actually paying for the club owners advertising costs .
On the flip side , all of the artists that are multi-millionaires deserve every penny .
Think about how many lives they 've had a positive impact on .
If a musician has decent material that deserves money , then they should find someone who can effectively market their work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A true artist DOES need compensation and deserves it.
All of the time and money put into lessons and practice deserves retribution.
Having the nerve to put yourself in front a crowd has a lot of value.
No one asks a doctor to care for patients for free because a true doctor should do it for the love of it.
All of these bands that play these "pay to play" venues are absolute suckers.
They are actually paying for the club owners advertising costs.
On the flip side, all of the artists that are multi-millionaires deserve every penny.
Think about how many lives they've had a positive impact on.
If a musician has decent material that deserves money, then they should find someone who can effectively market their work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349296</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it - WHAT???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267648860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's too bad if artists can't turn their compositions into money; but at the same time, a true artist doesn't need compensation - he/she does it for the sake of art, no?  What do you think?</p></div><p>Ok.  This is something I have personally wrestled with.</p><p>In order to create serious art, musically speaking, you sometimes have to spend hours, days, weeks, even YEARS to get a piece of music ready to be listened to by the public (or private) audience you are writing for.  Music by nature is a social art form, IMHO.</p><p>Some of us take our craft very seriously, and need lots of uninterrupted time to compose, document and record our works, which makes it very hard to do other things, like work a "job" to support ourselves whilst we create our art.  Distractions are anathema to musical creativity in most cases.</p><p>
&nbsp; While I prefer not to charge for my musical work, I still have to eat to sustain performance.  I still need somewhere to sleep while touring and displaying my art.  I still need electricity and devices to create music within my preferred methods of creation.</p><p>So while I do music for the sake of art, I still must see some reward for this art.  Bartering notwithstanding the only way to meet my goals of both living moderately well (i.e. good health) and continuing to create art is to sell my product.  This requires additional funding for packaging, recording, and distribution of both my art, not to mention the swag that goes along with promoting the art itself.</p><p>And this is before the record companies get their paws on it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's too bad if artists ca n't turn their compositions into money ; but at the same time , a true artist does n't need compensation - he/she does it for the sake of art , no ?
What do you think ? Ok .
This is something I have personally wrestled with.In order to create serious art , musically speaking , you sometimes have to spend hours , days , weeks , even YEARS to get a piece of music ready to be listened to by the public ( or private ) audience you are writing for .
Music by nature is a social art form , IMHO.Some of us take our craft very seriously , and need lots of uninterrupted time to compose , document and record our works , which makes it very hard to do other things , like work a " job " to support ourselves whilst we create our art .
Distractions are anathema to musical creativity in most cases .
  While I prefer not to charge for my musical work , I still have to eat to sustain performance .
I still need somewhere to sleep while touring and displaying my art .
I still need electricity and devices to create music within my preferred methods of creation.So while I do music for the sake of art , I still must see some reward for this art .
Bartering notwithstanding the only way to meet my goals of both living moderately well ( i.e .
good health ) and continuing to create art is to sell my product .
This requires additional funding for packaging , recording , and distribution of both my art , not to mention the swag that goes along with promoting the art itself.And this is before the record companies get their paws on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's too bad if artists can't turn their compositions into money; but at the same time, a true artist doesn't need compensation - he/she does it for the sake of art, no?
What do you think?Ok.
This is something I have personally wrestled with.In order to create serious art, musically speaking, you sometimes have to spend hours, days, weeks, even YEARS to get a piece of music ready to be listened to by the public (or private) audience you are writing for.
Music by nature is a social art form, IMHO.Some of us take our craft very seriously, and need lots of uninterrupted time to compose, document and record our works, which makes it very hard to do other things, like work a "job" to support ourselves whilst we create our art.
Distractions are anathema to musical creativity in most cases.
  While I prefer not to charge for my musical work, I still have to eat to sustain performance.
I still need somewhere to sleep while touring and displaying my art.
I still need electricity and devices to create music within my preferred methods of creation.So while I do music for the sake of art, I still must see some reward for this art.
Bartering notwithstanding the only way to meet my goals of both living moderately well (i.e.
good health) and continuing to create art is to sell my product.
This requires additional funding for packaging, recording, and distribution of both my art, not to mention the swag that goes along with promoting the art itself.And this is before the record companies get their paws on it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31357950</id>
	<title>Re:Good music comes from PAIN.</title>
	<author>Abstrackt</author>
	<datestamp>1267718340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The best music comes from PAIN. The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.</p><p>Software will never likely be able to model this raw emotional hurt, and thus will likely never be able to make truly moving music.</p></div><p>Cheer up, emo kid.</p><p>The best music evokes an emotional response but that could be happiness, sadness, enthusiasm, wonder, or even pain.  In the end that emotion is determined by the listener, not the song or how it was produced.  If a machine makes a song I like I'm not going to waste any time complaining about how it would have been better if it was made by a person, I'm simply going to enjoy it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best music comes from PAIN .
The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.Software will never likely be able to model this raw emotional hurt , and thus will likely never be able to make truly moving music.Cheer up , emo kid.The best music evokes an emotional response but that could be happiness , sadness , enthusiasm , wonder , or even pain .
In the end that emotion is determined by the listener , not the song or how it was produced .
If a machine makes a song I like I 'm not going to waste any time complaining about how it would have been better if it was made by a person , I 'm simply going to enjoy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best music comes from PAIN.
The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.Software will never likely be able to model this raw emotional hurt, and thus will likely never be able to make truly moving music.Cheer up, emo kid.The best music evokes an emotional response but that could be happiness, sadness, enthusiasm, wonder, or even pain.
In the end that emotion is determined by the listener, not the song or how it was produced.
If a machine makes a song I like I'm not going to waste any time complaining about how it would have been better if it was made by a person, I'm simply going to enjoy it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348472</id>
	<title>Re:How to alienate fans</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1267644660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, but lightcycles could travel in curved lines and were shown doing so in the original movie.  Just not on the game grid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , but lightcycles could travel in curved lines and were shown doing so in the original movie .
Just not on the game grid ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, but lightcycles could travel in curved lines and were shown doing so in the original movie.
Just not on the game grid ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348504</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1267644840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A true artist doesn't give a fuck what restrictions you think you get to put on his motivations.  In other words, I think you're full of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A true artist does n't give a fuck what restrictions you think you get to put on his motivations .
In other words , I think you 're full of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A true artist doesn't give a fuck what restrictions you think you get to put on his motivations.
In other words, I think you're full of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31354470</id>
	<title>Re:A Novelty At Best</title>
	<author>chthonicdaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1267637640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've listened to some excellent music composed by <a href="http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/" title="miller-mccune.com">Emmie</a> [miller-mccune.com], a computer program that does much of what you describe (analyses parameters,etc).  David Cope is far more prolific this way than composing "by hand".  At some point we are going to realise that "creativity" is not about creating anything at all, but rather about generating and recognising interesting permutations.  I have every confidence that machines will be producing new and listenable music in the near future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've listened to some excellent music composed by Emmie [ miller-mccune.com ] , a computer program that does much of what you describe ( analyses parameters,etc ) .
David Cope is far more prolific this way than composing " by hand " .
At some point we are going to realise that " creativity " is not about creating anything at all , but rather about generating and recognising interesting permutations .
I have every confidence that machines will be producing new and listenable music in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've listened to some excellent music composed by Emmie [miller-mccune.com], a computer program that does much of what you describe (analyses parameters,etc).
David Cope is far more prolific this way than composing "by hand".
At some point we are going to realise that "creativity" is not about creating anything at all, but rather about generating and recognising interesting permutations.
I have every confidence that machines will be producing new and listenable music in the near future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31354502</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright of Style???</title>
	<author>chthonicdaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1267637880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On a deeper level, how much of Clapton's style was ripped off of the blues greats that he idolizes?  How much of their style came from the people they emulated.  The myth of the unique is so strong that people really start believing in "creative genius".  At some point we will realise that all music is a reshuffle of frequencies subject to some biological constraints in our hearing and perceptual system.  Might as well try to copyright 1+1=2</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a deeper level , how much of Clapton 's style was ripped off of the blues greats that he idolizes ?
How much of their style came from the people they emulated .
The myth of the unique is so strong that people really start believing in " creative genius " .
At some point we will realise that all music is a reshuffle of frequencies subject to some biological constraints in our hearing and perceptual system .
Might as well try to copyright 1 + 1 = 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a deeper level, how much of Clapton's style was ripped off of the blues greats that he idolizes?
How much of their style came from the people they emulated.
The myth of the unique is so strong that people really start believing in "creative genius".
At some point we will realise that all music is a reshuffle of frequencies subject to some biological constraints in our hearing and perceptual system.
Might as well try to copyright 1+1=2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348424</id>
	<title>Re:Jimi Hendrix + Lady Gaga?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267644480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga?"</i>
<p>Until it made the news yesterday that Lady Gaga is celibate. I was more concerned about how I would cover her.<br>
Oh, they were talking about musical style? Never mind.
</p><p> <i>For the uninitiated. Cover is a term for mating in the world of animal breeders.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga ?
" Until it made the news yesterday that Lady Gaga is celibate .
I was more concerned about how I would cover her .
Oh , they were talking about musical style ?
Never mind .
For the uninitiated .
Cover is a term for mating in the world of animal breeders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga?
"
Until it made the news yesterday that Lady Gaga is celibate.
I was more concerned about how I would cover her.
Oh, they were talking about musical style?
Never mind.
For the uninitiated.
Cover is a term for mating in the world of animal breeders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349052</id>
	<title>Re:Stand on Zanzibar</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1267647600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Been there; done that. I've written a composition very similar to one by John Cage. In fact, it is even better! I call it "4'34"!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Been there ; done that .
I 've written a composition very similar to one by John Cage .
In fact , it is even better !
I call it " 4'34 " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Been there; done that.
I've written a composition very similar to one by John Cage.
In fact, it is even better!
I call it "4'34"!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349790</id>
	<title>Live music will never die</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1267607880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds good, not $10.7 million good.  How do I know that someone didn't just do a good job of midi programming?  The article, like all pop science articles, is extremely vague.  "Complex software" could mean Sonar from the perspective of the average Joe.  Throw a bunch of buzz words at a group of investors, and they might bite.  I've seen it before, and couldn't believe it when I saw an investor cut a check for $1 million to the stupidest idea(of course he lost his money).

<br>
<br>

Even if this software worked perfectly, you still need performers to create new styles.  They will never be able to recreate the vibe you get when seeing a live show.  If they did, you'd have a computer that could pass the Turing test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds good , not $ 10.7 million good .
How do I know that someone did n't just do a good job of midi programming ?
The article , like all pop science articles , is extremely vague .
" Complex software " could mean Sonar from the perspective of the average Joe .
Throw a bunch of buzz words at a group of investors , and they might bite .
I 've seen it before , and could n't believe it when I saw an investor cut a check for $ 1 million to the stupidest idea ( of course he lost his money ) .
Even if this software worked perfectly , you still need performers to create new styles .
They will never be able to recreate the vibe you get when seeing a live show .
If they did , you 'd have a computer that could pass the Turing test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds good, not $10.7 million good.
How do I know that someone didn't just do a good job of midi programming?
The article, like all pop science articles, is extremely vague.
"Complex software" could mean Sonar from the perspective of the average Joe.
Throw a bunch of buzz words at a group of investors, and they might bite.
I've seen it before, and couldn't believe it when I saw an investor cut a check for $1 million to the stupidest idea(of course he lost his money).
Even if this software worked perfectly, you still need performers to create new styles.
They will never be able to recreate the vibe you get when seeing a live show.
If they did, you'd have a computer that could pass the Turing test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349076</id>
	<title>BFWOTE</title>
	<author>nsaspook</author>
	<datestamp>1267647720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll say again BFWOTE</p><p>#2 <a href="http://bplteensofwa.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/eraserhead-posters.jpg" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://bplteensofwa.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/eraserhead-posters.jpg</a> [wordpress.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll say again BFWOTE # 2 http : //bplteensofwa.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/eraserhead-posters.jpg [ wordpress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll say again BFWOTE#2 http://bplteensofwa.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/eraserhead-posters.jpg [wordpress.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350642</id>
	<title>Re:Good music comes from PAIN.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267611960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The best music comes from enjoying life. Whiny emo comes from pain.</i></p><p>Come on, kid, emo is pure crap. The Blues is from pain, and it's older than me; I have a record by John Lee Hooker that was recorded in 1947. Much or even most of today's music has its roots in the blues, and many of the old blues standards have been re-recorded over and over, and still are being covered by today's musicians.</p><blockquote><div><p>So I ask him, man I'm in the street, can I stay at your place for a coupla days?" He says "I gotta go and ask my wife". He comes out and I know the answer is no. "She kind o' funny, you know"</p><p>"Yeah, everybody funny. Now you funny, too."</p><p>So I walks on down the street and gets my clothes. "You gonna pay the front rent?" she says. "Gonna pay the front rent? Se be lucky if she get any back rent.</p></div></blockquote><p>-John Lee Hooker, <i>House Rent Blues</i> </p><blockquote><div><p>I open my back door, hear my backdoor slam, must be one o' them newfangled back doors. I been working from seven to eleven, kinda makes my life a drag. Since I've been lobing you I'm about to lose my worried mind.</p></div></blockquote><p>-Led Zeppelin, <i>Since I've Been Loving You</i></p><p>Get off my lawn, and take your wannabe music with you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best music comes from enjoying life .
Whiny emo comes from pain.Come on , kid , emo is pure crap .
The Blues is from pain , and it 's older than me ; I have a record by John Lee Hooker that was recorded in 1947 .
Much or even most of today 's music has its roots in the blues , and many of the old blues standards have been re-recorded over and over , and still are being covered by today 's musicians.So I ask him , man I 'm in the street , can I stay at your place for a coupla days ?
" He says " I got ta go and ask my wife " .
He comes out and I know the answer is no .
" She kind o ' funny , you know " " Yeah , everybody funny .
Now you funny , too .
" So I walks on down the street and gets my clothes .
" You gon na pay the front rent ?
" she says .
" Gon na pay the front rent ?
Se be lucky if she get any back rent.-John Lee Hooker , House Rent Blues I open my back door , hear my backdoor slam , must be one o ' them newfangled back doors .
I been working from seven to eleven , kinda makes my life a drag .
Since I 've been lobing you I 'm about to lose my worried mind.-Led Zeppelin , Since I 've Been Loving YouGet off my lawn , and take your wannabe music with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best music comes from enjoying life.
Whiny emo comes from pain.Come on, kid, emo is pure crap.
The Blues is from pain, and it's older than me; I have a record by John Lee Hooker that was recorded in 1947.
Much or even most of today's music has its roots in the blues, and many of the old blues standards have been re-recorded over and over, and still are being covered by today's musicians.So I ask him, man I'm in the street, can I stay at your place for a coupla days?
" He says "I gotta go and ask my wife".
He comes out and I know the answer is no.
"She kind o' funny, you know""Yeah, everybody funny.
Now you funny, too.
"So I walks on down the street and gets my clothes.
"You gonna pay the front rent?
" she says.
"Gonna pay the front rent?
Se be lucky if she get any back rent.-John Lee Hooker, House Rent Blues I open my back door, hear my backdoor slam, must be one o' them newfangled back doors.
I been working from seven to eleven, kinda makes my life a drag.
Since I've been lobing you I'm about to lose my worried mind.-Led Zeppelin, Since I've Been Loving YouGet off my lawn, and take your wannabe music with you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31356808</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1267710060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>beatles got on the spot practice by doing resident band gigs in hamburg. Sadly, these days its cheaper to pay the RIAA or whatever, and put a ramdomized collection of MP3 in the corner. More room for customers that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>beatles got on the spot practice by doing resident band gigs in hamburg .
Sadly , these days its cheaper to pay the RIAA or whatever , and put a ramdomized collection of MP3 in the corner .
More room for customers that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>beatles got on the spot practice by doing resident band gigs in hamburg.
Sadly, these days its cheaper to pay the RIAA or whatever, and put a ramdomized collection of MP3 in the corner.
More room for customers that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348368</id>
	<title>But the artists...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267644180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors? In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.</p></div><p>That's ridiculous! The studios would never let that happen. I mean after all, the MPAA and RIAA have spent the last few years fighting hard to ensure every artist keeps their God-given right to get make as much money as possible for their work. After all, it's <i>all about the artists</i>, right? The very suggestion that the recording/movie studios would dispense with artists at the drop of a hat if they could keep every single penny for themselves is laughable!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this goes on , will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors ?
In the future , it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.That 's ridiculous !
The studios would never let that happen .
I mean after all , the MPAA and RIAA have spent the last few years fighting hard to ensure every artist keeps their God-given right to get make as much money as possible for their work .
After all , it 's all about the artists , right ?
The very suggestion that the recording/movie studios would dispense with artists at the drop of a hat if they could keep every single penny for themselves is laughable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors?
In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.That's ridiculous!
The studios would never let that happen.
I mean after all, the MPAA and RIAA have spent the last few years fighting hard to ensure every artist keeps their God-given right to get make as much money as possible for their work.
After all, it's all about the artists, right?
The very suggestion that the recording/movie studios would dispense with artists at the drop of a hat if they could keep every single penny for themselves is laughable!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350362</id>
	<title>Re:roll over, beethoven,</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1267610580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no artificial stupidity is where the real change is at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no artificial stupidity is where the real change is at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no artificial stupidity is where the real change is at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349606</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1267607100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do we know that Nickleback isn't one of these musical AI's?</p><p>Oh, right. These AIs are producing music that is receiving critical and fan acclaim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we know that Nickleback is n't one of these musical AI 's ? Oh , right .
These AIs are producing music that is receiving critical and fan acclaim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we know that Nickleback isn't one of these musical AI's?Oh, right.
These AIs are producing music that is receiving critical and fan acclaim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206</id>
	<title>It's a shame, but I'm ok with it</title>
	<author>iPhr0stByt3</author>
	<datestamp>1267643520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's too bad if artists can't turn their compositions into money; but at the same time, a true artist doesn't need compensation - he/she does it for the sake of art, no?  What do you think?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's too bad if artists ca n't turn their compositions into money ; but at the same time , a true artist does n't need compensation - he/she does it for the sake of art , no ?
What do you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's too bad if artists can't turn their compositions into money; but at the same time, a true artist doesn't need compensation - he/she does it for the sake of art, no?
What do you think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350776</id>
	<title>Re:A CGI Flynn?</title>
	<author>Kurrel</author>
	<datestamp>1267612440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While we've had plenty of CG characters visually designed from scratch, it's a far cry to say that we're near being able to synthesize their voices.

Even our most carefully-crafted synthesized characters (Wall-E, GLaDOS) used augmented human recordings!</htmltext>
<tokenext>While we 've had plenty of CG characters visually designed from scratch , it 's a far cry to say that we 're near being able to synthesize their voices .
Even our most carefully-crafted synthesized characters ( Wall-E , GLaDOS ) used augmented human recordings !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we've had plenty of CG characters visually designed from scratch, it's a far cry to say that we're near being able to synthesize their voices.
Even our most carefully-crafted synthesized characters (Wall-E, GLaDOS) used augmented human recordings!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348216</id>
	<title>Hell's waiting room</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267643520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hendrix covering Lady Gaga is what they play while you're waiting for Satan to bake up all those donuts you are about to get force fed. And it only goes downhill from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hendrix covering Lady Gaga is what they play while you 're waiting for Satan to bake up all those donuts you are about to get force fed .
And it only goes downhill from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hendrix covering Lady Gaga is what they play while you're waiting for Satan to bake up all those donuts you are about to get force fed.
And it only goes downhill from there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350236</id>
	<title>Music is irrelevant now.</title>
	<author>Mirkman</author>
	<datestamp>1267609920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the progression of this technology Music is now irrelevant. In one fell swoop a machine will generate  all music that every did, and ever could possibly exist.

All music now exists here and now

Music will no longer be a valuable commodity. Its like diamonds. The only reason music will have valuable is because of a controlled market.

Here is what will happen:
People dont buy music alone. Music made by a nameless, faceless machine will never sell. People buy a face, and an image with the music. The face, the look, and the social image are what most people are really buying, and mostly all they are interested in. So... There will still be fabulously rich "artists" but they are nothing more than glorified fashion models for a computer generated track. The music will be created by a machine from start to finish, and "Britney Spears" cloned "Artists" will parade around the stage passing the music off as their own. and everyone will lover her because her music is so great, and she is so beautiful, and she is sort of a bad ass kinky freaky chic, and she flashes her tit on TV.. and blah blah blah blah

The process is already being done today, but by real people behind the scenes writing the music, mixing the beats, and creating the image for her/him. Now everything will be done by the machine, instantly, on demand, and all they need is a pretty boy or girl to go dance around and act stupid.

In fact they could have an artist perform a brand new "original" track every single time they do a concert... they could in the middle of the show have the computer spit out a completely new song right there on demand based on how the audience is reacting to the one she is currently dancing and singing along too.

Music no longer has any meaning or value. Its just sound noise</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the progression of this technology Music is now irrelevant .
In one fell swoop a machine will generate all music that every did , and ever could possibly exist .
All music now exists here and now Music will no longer be a valuable commodity .
Its like diamonds .
The only reason music will have valuable is because of a controlled market .
Here is what will happen : People dont buy music alone .
Music made by a nameless , faceless machine will never sell .
People buy a face , and an image with the music .
The face , the look , and the social image are what most people are really buying , and mostly all they are interested in .
So... There will still be fabulously rich " artists " but they are nothing more than glorified fashion models for a computer generated track .
The music will be created by a machine from start to finish , and " Britney Spears " cloned " Artists " will parade around the stage passing the music off as their own .
and everyone will lover her because her music is so great , and she is so beautiful , and she is sort of a bad ass kinky freaky chic , and she flashes her tit on TV.. and blah blah blah blah The process is already being done today , but by real people behind the scenes writing the music , mixing the beats , and creating the image for her/him .
Now everything will be done by the machine , instantly , on demand , and all they need is a pretty boy or girl to go dance around and act stupid .
In fact they could have an artist perform a brand new " original " track every single time they do a concert... they could in the middle of the show have the computer spit out a completely new song right there on demand based on how the audience is reacting to the one she is currently dancing and singing along too .
Music no longer has any meaning or value .
Its just sound noise</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the progression of this technology Music is now irrelevant.
In one fell swoop a machine will generate  all music that every did, and ever could possibly exist.
All music now exists here and now

Music will no longer be a valuable commodity.
Its like diamonds.
The only reason music will have valuable is because of a controlled market.
Here is what will happen:
People dont buy music alone.
Music made by a nameless, faceless machine will never sell.
People buy a face, and an image with the music.
The face, the look, and the social image are what most people are really buying, and mostly all they are interested in.
So... There will still be fabulously rich "artists" but they are nothing more than glorified fashion models for a computer generated track.
The music will be created by a machine from start to finish, and "Britney Spears" cloned "Artists" will parade around the stage passing the music off as their own.
and everyone will lover her because her music is so great, and she is so beautiful, and she is sort of a bad ass kinky freaky chic, and she flashes her tit on TV.. and blah blah blah blah

The process is already being done today, but by real people behind the scenes writing the music, mixing the beats, and creating the image for her/him.
Now everything will be done by the machine, instantly, on demand, and all they need is a pretty boy or girl to go dance around and act stupid.
In fact they could have an artist perform a brand new "original" track every single time they do a concert... they could in the middle of the show have the computer spit out a completely new song right there on demand based on how the audience is reacting to the one she is currently dancing and singing along too.
Music no longer has any meaning or value.
Its just sound noise</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31352186</id>
	<title>Macross Plus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267619160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For shame, no mention of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon\_Apple" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Sharon Apple?</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For shame , no mention of Sharon Apple ?
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For shame, no mention of Sharon Apple?
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350246</id>
	<title>Not For Real Music...</title>
	<author>thePsychologist</author>
	<datestamp>1267609980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few years ago I was at a museum listening to the Goldberg Variations on these headphones attached to the wall. The displayed CD cover had Glenn Gould on it. Immediately when I started listening I knew it wasn't Gould; I turned the CD around and it turns out it was just a virtual recording, produced by technicians studying the record and trying to implement Gould's style. It wasn't anything like Gould. I mean, sure on the surface it was similar but it lacked that little bit that makes Gould so special, and that separated him from the rest. There will always be a place for real music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years ago I was at a museum listening to the Goldberg Variations on these headphones attached to the wall .
The displayed CD cover had Glenn Gould on it .
Immediately when I started listening I knew it was n't Gould ; I turned the CD around and it turns out it was just a virtual recording , produced by technicians studying the record and trying to implement Gould 's style .
It was n't anything like Gould .
I mean , sure on the surface it was similar but it lacked that little bit that makes Gould so special , and that separated him from the rest .
There will always be a place for real music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years ago I was at a museum listening to the Goldberg Variations on these headphones attached to the wall.
The displayed CD cover had Glenn Gould on it.
Immediately when I started listening I knew it wasn't Gould; I turned the CD around and it turns out it was just a virtual recording, produced by technicians studying the record and trying to implement Gould's style.
It wasn't anything like Gould.
I mean, sure on the surface it was similar but it lacked that little bit that makes Gould so special, and that separated him from the rest.
There will always be a place for real music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348640</id>
	<title>Re:Good music comes from PAIN.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267645440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The best music comes from PAIN. The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.</p><p>Software will never likely be able to model this raw emotional hurt, and thus will likely never be able to make truly moving music.</p></div> </blockquote><p>If Jimi Hendrix covering Lady Gaga is not PAIN, then what is?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best music comes from PAIN .
The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.Software will never likely be able to model this raw emotional hurt , and thus will likely never be able to make truly moving music .
If Jimi Hendrix covering Lady Gaga is not PAIN , then what is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best music comes from PAIN.
The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.Software will never likely be able to model this raw emotional hurt, and thus will likely never be able to make truly moving music.
If Jimi Hendrix covering Lady Gaga is not PAIN, then what is?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31351844</id>
	<title>Re:Hell's waiting room</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267617540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean something like this?</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlAiXE6MLi0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean something like this ? http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = NlAiXE6MLi0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean something like this?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlAiXE6MLi0</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31367676</id>
	<title>C change</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1267727760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was pretty chuffed when the first Gould recording came out, though honestly after satisfying my curiosity I don't bother to seek it out when I have the vocalese obligato at hand.</p><p>The following is an excellent article for those with a geek attention span:<br><a href="http://zenph.com/mwienert.html" title="zenph.com">Zenph Studios Marc Wienert piano voicer Yamaha Steinway preparation Mott Music</a> [zenph.com]</p><p>Before speculating on the potential limits of this approach, it's useful to acquaint yourself with the ideas of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J\%C3\%BCrgen\_Schmidhuber" title="wikipedia.org">J&#252;rgen Schmidhuber</a> [wikipedia.org].  My feeling is that the majority of the human race has the same emotional attachment to human creativity that Kasparov (once) held rather fervently about creativity in chess.  I don't know if he ever recanted baldly, but he did switch to a career in politics.  I regard Kasparov as the small sea change.  Computer chess was a novelty in 1980.  That didn't last long.</p><p>Is there more to curiosity and creativity than a rigorous rejection of banality?  Only time will tell.  Nothing prevents Zenph from forming an alliance with the dark forces of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromarketing" title="wikipedia.org">neuromarketing</a> [wikipedia.org].  They don't have to replicate the impossible, they only have to make you <b>believe</b> that they've done so, without bothering to solicit your opinion verbally, if you consent to the cap.</p><p>Personally, I like this development.  There is too much cult of personality in this society.  Soon the real celebrities (and their incredibly fragile public personae) will be competing against fake celebrities who only have sex with other fake celebrities, according to neuromarketing biorhythms.  Accenture is investing heavily.</p><p>If the eyes are the gateway of the soul, then music is the gateway to the cult of personality.  A billion iPods can't be wrong.</p><p>To really get inside an artist's head, you also need some music the artist recorded badly.  Fortunately, Gould did not spare us the carnage.  One of his Mozart recordings is almost unlistenable.  The true artistic challenge for Zenph is to make Gould play Chopin differently, yet exactly as badly as his worst Mozart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was pretty chuffed when the first Gould recording came out , though honestly after satisfying my curiosity I do n't bother to seek it out when I have the vocalese obligato at hand.The following is an excellent article for those with a geek attention span : Zenph Studios Marc Wienert piano voicer Yamaha Steinway preparation Mott Music [ zenph.com ] Before speculating on the potential limits of this approach , it 's useful to acquaint yourself with the ideas of J   rgen Schmidhuber [ wikipedia.org ] .
My feeling is that the majority of the human race has the same emotional attachment to human creativity that Kasparov ( once ) held rather fervently about creativity in chess .
I do n't know if he ever recanted baldly , but he did switch to a career in politics .
I regard Kasparov as the small sea change .
Computer chess was a novelty in 1980 .
That did n't last long.Is there more to curiosity and creativity than a rigorous rejection of banality ?
Only time will tell .
Nothing prevents Zenph from forming an alliance with the dark forces of neuromarketing [ wikipedia.org ] .
They do n't have to replicate the impossible , they only have to make you believe that they 've done so , without bothering to solicit your opinion verbally , if you consent to the cap.Personally , I like this development .
There is too much cult of personality in this society .
Soon the real celebrities ( and their incredibly fragile public personae ) will be competing against fake celebrities who only have sex with other fake celebrities , according to neuromarketing biorhythms .
Accenture is investing heavily.If the eyes are the gateway of the soul , then music is the gateway to the cult of personality .
A billion iPods ca n't be wrong.To really get inside an artist 's head , you also need some music the artist recorded badly .
Fortunately , Gould did not spare us the carnage .
One of his Mozart recordings is almost unlistenable .
The true artistic challenge for Zenph is to make Gould play Chopin differently , yet exactly as badly as his worst Mozart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was pretty chuffed when the first Gould recording came out, though honestly after satisfying my curiosity I don't bother to seek it out when I have the vocalese obligato at hand.The following is an excellent article for those with a geek attention span:Zenph Studios Marc Wienert piano voicer Yamaha Steinway preparation Mott Music [zenph.com]Before speculating on the potential limits of this approach, it's useful to acquaint yourself with the ideas of Jürgen Schmidhuber [wikipedia.org].
My feeling is that the majority of the human race has the same emotional attachment to human creativity that Kasparov (once) held rather fervently about creativity in chess.
I don't know if he ever recanted baldly, but he did switch to a career in politics.
I regard Kasparov as the small sea change.
Computer chess was a novelty in 1980.
That didn't last long.Is there more to curiosity and creativity than a rigorous rejection of banality?
Only time will tell.
Nothing prevents Zenph from forming an alliance with the dark forces of neuromarketing [wikipedia.org].
They don't have to replicate the impossible, they only have to make you believe that they've done so, without bothering to solicit your opinion verbally, if you consent to the cap.Personally, I like this development.
There is too much cult of personality in this society.
Soon the real celebrities (and their incredibly fragile public personae) will be competing against fake celebrities who only have sex with other fake celebrities, according to neuromarketing biorhythms.
Accenture is investing heavily.If the eyes are the gateway of the soul, then music is the gateway to the cult of personality.
A billion iPods can't be wrong.To really get inside an artist's head, you also need some music the artist recorded badly.
Fortunately, Gould did not spare us the carnage.
One of his Mozart recordings is almost unlistenable.
The true artistic challenge for Zenph is to make Gould play Chopin differently, yet exactly as badly as his worst Mozart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31351732</id>
	<title>Obvious question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267616940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the fsck is "Lady Gaga" ??!</p><p>Is that like menopause or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fsck is " Lady Gaga " ? ?
! Is that like menopause or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fsck is "Lady Gaga" ??
!Is that like menopause or something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349068</id>
	<title>Re:A Novelty At Best</title>
	<author>shabtai87</author>
	<datestamp>1267647660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are actually methods being looked into to analyze art by certain unsupervised learning methods. Right now this has been looked at for paintings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8440142.stm, BBC news) and (http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~dgraham/hughes\_pnas.pdf, the pdf of the actual paper) but similar mathematical models exist for auditory coding, and might be applied to characterizing the various styles of music without researchers fiddling with all the knobs. Will this type of analysis be useful in proceeding? Maybe, maybe not. But if there's enough success in distinguishing paintings by certain artists from well make fakes, why not try to turn the model into a constructive model that might generate art a la a certain artists (or musician if applied to art?)</p><p>I do have to agree (as a lover of music) that it will not be a complete replacement by any means, but it will definitely be amusing to see how close models of artists can be to the real thing based solely on their art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are actually methods being looked into to analyze art by certain unsupervised learning methods .
Right now this has been looked at for paintings ( http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8440142.stm , BBC news ) and ( http : //www.math.dartmouth.edu/ ~ dgraham/hughes \ _pnas.pdf , the pdf of the actual paper ) but similar mathematical models exist for auditory coding , and might be applied to characterizing the various styles of music without researchers fiddling with all the knobs .
Will this type of analysis be useful in proceeding ?
Maybe , maybe not .
But if there 's enough success in distinguishing paintings by certain artists from well make fakes , why not try to turn the model into a constructive model that might generate art a la a certain artists ( or musician if applied to art ?
) I do have to agree ( as a lover of music ) that it will not be a complete replacement by any means , but it will definitely be amusing to see how close models of artists can be to the real thing based solely on their art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are actually methods being looked into to analyze art by certain unsupervised learning methods.
Right now this has been looked at for paintings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8440142.stm, BBC news) and (http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~dgraham/hughes\_pnas.pdf, the pdf of the actual paper) but similar mathematical models exist for auditory coding, and might be applied to characterizing the various styles of music without researchers fiddling with all the knobs.
Will this type of analysis be useful in proceeding?
Maybe, maybe not.
But if there's enough success in distinguishing paintings by certain artists from well make fakes, why not try to turn the model into a constructive model that might generate art a la a certain artists (or musician if applied to art?
)I do have to agree (as a lover of music) that it will not be a complete replacement by any means, but it will definitely be amusing to see how close models of artists can be to the real thing based solely on their art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348502</id>
	<title>More interesting question</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1267644840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians<br>&gt; and actors?</p><p>More interesting question:  If this goes on, will musicians and actors actually need major labels and studios?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If this goes on , will the major labels and studios actually need musicians &gt; and actors ? More interesting question : If this goes on , will musicians and actors actually need major labels and studios ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians&gt; and actors?More interesting question:  If this goes on, will musicians and actors actually need major labels and studios?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31351608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31359798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31354502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31358410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31353294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31367676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31356808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31351844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31354470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31357950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31354984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31356830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31360992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_175209_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31359798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31356830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31358410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31367676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31360992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31354470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31357950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31352148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31353294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31356808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31354984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31351608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31354502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31351844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31350312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31349052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_175209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_175209.31348324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
