<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_06_1319208</id>
	<title>Why Paying For Code Doesn't Mean You Own It</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267885200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Why do people think they own code just because they've paid for it? PC Pro's Kevin Partner says many of his clients <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/356161/paying-for-code-doesn-t-mean-owning-it">believe that by paying for the work to be done, they take ownership of it</a>. But, put simply, code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid, unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership (and even then it's far from clear-cut).  He discusses the thorny issue of making clients understand that distinction and gives advice on how developers can assert their rights."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Why do people think they own code just because they 've paid for it ?
PC Pro 's Kevin Partner says many of his clients believe that by paying for the work to be done , they take ownership of it .
But , put simply , code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid , unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership ( and even then it 's far from clear-cut ) .
He discusses the thorny issue of making clients understand that distinction and gives advice on how developers can assert their rights .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Why do people think they own code just because they've paid for it?
PC Pro's Kevin Partner says many of his clients believe that by paying for the work to be done, they take ownership of it.
But, put simply, code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid, unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership (and even then it's far from clear-cut).
He discusses the thorny issue of making clients understand that distinction and gives advice on how developers can assert their rights.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380720</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267890840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work.</p></div><p>
I think this may depend on where you live, but <b>legally</b> this isn't always right.  The idea is that when you write software, you're creating something using your talent and skill, then you're selling the end result to a buyer.  You can, in fact, sell that something multiple times to different buyers.  You haven't created a single instance of an end product (the running software); you've created a repeatable process for creating copies of that end product, then selling each one.
</p><p>
All of that is splitting hairs, I know.  And I don't think it agrees with common sense, myself.  But that's how a lot of the legal and tax systems treat the process.  You can, of course, change the ownership issue with contracts, which is what TFA talks about.
</p><p>
Several years ago, when I owned my own custom software business, I went through a state sales tax audit.  The worst six weeks of my entire life, easily.  I used "Work For Hire" contracts with my customers, with the modification that I retained the right to excerpt "useful subroutines" and reuse them in any other projects (along with clauses saying that a customer's project may contain such code).  In the main, though, what we wrote belonged to the customer when we were finished.  The tax department <b>really</b> didn't like that, as that exempted us from charging sales tax (thereby depriving the state of some revenue).  I won, eventually, and that whole process left me far more knowledgeable about the tax code and whole lot less enthusiastic about it.  They've probably closed that loophole since.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone pays you to perform work , they own all rights to that work .
I think this may depend on where you live , but legally this is n't always right .
The idea is that when you write software , you 're creating something using your talent and skill , then you 're selling the end result to a buyer .
You can , in fact , sell that something multiple times to different buyers .
You have n't created a single instance of an end product ( the running software ) ; you 've created a repeatable process for creating copies of that end product , then selling each one .
All of that is splitting hairs , I know .
And I do n't think it agrees with common sense , myself .
But that 's how a lot of the legal and tax systems treat the process .
You can , of course , change the ownership issue with contracts , which is what TFA talks about .
Several years ago , when I owned my own custom software business , I went through a state sales tax audit .
The worst six weeks of my entire life , easily .
I used " Work For Hire " contracts with my customers , with the modification that I retained the right to excerpt " useful subroutines " and reuse them in any other projects ( along with clauses saying that a customer 's project may contain such code ) .
In the main , though , what we wrote belonged to the customer when we were finished .
The tax department really did n't like that , as that exempted us from charging sales tax ( thereby depriving the state of some revenue ) .
I won , eventually , and that whole process left me far more knowledgeable about the tax code and whole lot less enthusiastic about it .
They 've probably closed that loophole since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work.
I think this may depend on where you live, but legally this isn't always right.
The idea is that when you write software, you're creating something using your talent and skill, then you're selling the end result to a buyer.
You can, in fact, sell that something multiple times to different buyers.
You haven't created a single instance of an end product (the running software); you've created a repeatable process for creating copies of that end product, then selling each one.
All of that is splitting hairs, I know.
And I don't think it agrees with common sense, myself.
But that's how a lot of the legal and tax systems treat the process.
You can, of course, change the ownership issue with contracts, which is what TFA talks about.
Several years ago, when I owned my own custom software business, I went through a state sales tax audit.
The worst six weeks of my entire life, easily.
I used "Work For Hire" contracts with my customers, with the modification that I retained the right to excerpt "useful subroutines" and reuse them in any other projects (along with clauses saying that a customer's project may contain such code).
In the main, though, what we wrote belonged to the customer when we were finished.
The tax department really didn't like that, as that exempted us from charging sales tax (thereby depriving the state of some revenue).
I won, eventually, and that whole process left me far more knowledgeable about the tax code and whole lot less enthusiastic about it.
They've probably closed that loophole since.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382052</id>
	<title>Re:False dichotomy of Microsoft/Linux</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1267904280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``Then Linux came along and somehow "closed source" became a synonym for "proprietary", and "open source" a synonym for "free" (gratis). Microsoft feeds into this by not releasing the source code to Windows. Windows would be an even stronger (proprietary) product, IMO, if the source code were available.''</p><p>Actually, Microsoft does make the source code of Windows available. For example, <a href="http://news.theolympian.com/PalmNews/20030301/wirelessbusiness/12089.html" title="theolympian.com">the Chinese government has access to the source code of Windows</a> [theolympian.com]. Other governments, some businesses, and various individuals (outside Microsoft, too) also have access.</p><p>``The Linux community shares some of the blame by touting libre, gratis, and "open source" in the same breath.''</p><p>Well, Linux is libre, gratis, and open source. I feel the problem is not so much with the various open source communities. People in these communities often care about their licenses and are aware of the various distinctions. It's people \_outside\_ the open source communities that seem to assume that "if I can get it for free, I can do whatever I want with it" - which is generally not true, neither of open source nor of closed source software.</p><p>The interesting thing is that proprietary software vendors often turn a blind eye to violations of their licensing terms - e.g. redistribution by third parties of software that is gratis but not freely redistributable. I'm sure they are also largely unaware of when this happens, but they also have a good reason for wanting to turn a blind eye: by letting people believe that they have more freedoms than they really have, they aren't driven to software that comes with fewer restrictions.</p><p>By contrast, even though open source software generally allows much more, the rights holders tend to get very upset when the few restrictions in the license are not respected, especially in the case of modifications not being made available in source code form for GPLed software. There are people who make a living prosecuting such cases. Many of them involve Linux.</p><p>So I certainly wouldn't say that the Linux community is muddying the waters here. To me, it seems that they are very clear on what is and what isn't granted as part of the license. Most GPL violations I know of are cases of the violator very obviously not abiding by the terms of the license. Had they read the license, they would have known this. Had they asked the rights holders, they would have known this. But of course, licenses are something you just click through, right? That's the way it works in the proprietary software world, anyway. So, again, it's not the Linux community that is causing the confusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` Then Linux came along and somehow " closed source " became a synonym for " proprietary " , and " open source " a synonym for " free " ( gratis ) .
Microsoft feeds into this by not releasing the source code to Windows .
Windows would be an even stronger ( proprietary ) product , IMO , if the source code were available .
''Actually , Microsoft does make the source code of Windows available .
For example , the Chinese government has access to the source code of Windows [ theolympian.com ] .
Other governments , some businesses , and various individuals ( outside Microsoft , too ) also have access. ` ` The Linux community shares some of the blame by touting libre , gratis , and " open source " in the same breath .
''Well , Linux is libre , gratis , and open source .
I feel the problem is not so much with the various open source communities .
People in these communities often care about their licenses and are aware of the various distinctions .
It 's people \ _outside \ _ the open source communities that seem to assume that " if I can get it for free , I can do whatever I want with it " - which is generally not true , neither of open source nor of closed source software.The interesting thing is that proprietary software vendors often turn a blind eye to violations of their licensing terms - e.g .
redistribution by third parties of software that is gratis but not freely redistributable .
I 'm sure they are also largely unaware of when this happens , but they also have a good reason for wanting to turn a blind eye : by letting people believe that they have more freedoms than they really have , they are n't driven to software that comes with fewer restrictions.By contrast , even though open source software generally allows much more , the rights holders tend to get very upset when the few restrictions in the license are not respected , especially in the case of modifications not being made available in source code form for GPLed software .
There are people who make a living prosecuting such cases .
Many of them involve Linux.So I certainly would n't say that the Linux community is muddying the waters here .
To me , it seems that they are very clear on what is and what is n't granted as part of the license .
Most GPL violations I know of are cases of the violator very obviously not abiding by the terms of the license .
Had they read the license , they would have known this .
Had they asked the rights holders , they would have known this .
But of course , licenses are something you just click through , right ?
That 's the way it works in the proprietary software world , anyway .
So , again , it 's not the Linux community that is causing the confusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``Then Linux came along and somehow "closed source" became a synonym for "proprietary", and "open source" a synonym for "free" (gratis).
Microsoft feeds into this by not releasing the source code to Windows.
Windows would be an even stronger (proprietary) product, IMO, if the source code were available.
''Actually, Microsoft does make the source code of Windows available.
For example, the Chinese government has access to the source code of Windows [theolympian.com].
Other governments, some businesses, and various individuals (outside Microsoft, too) also have access.``The Linux community shares some of the blame by touting libre, gratis, and "open source" in the same breath.
''Well, Linux is libre, gratis, and open source.
I feel the problem is not so much with the various open source communities.
People in these communities often care about their licenses and are aware of the various distinctions.
It's people \_outside\_ the open source communities that seem to assume that "if I can get it for free, I can do whatever I want with it" - which is generally not true, neither of open source nor of closed source software.The interesting thing is that proprietary software vendors often turn a blind eye to violations of their licensing terms - e.g.
redistribution by third parties of software that is gratis but not freely redistributable.
I'm sure they are also largely unaware of when this happens, but they also have a good reason for wanting to turn a blind eye: by letting people believe that they have more freedoms than they really have, they aren't driven to software that comes with fewer restrictions.By contrast, even though open source software generally allows much more, the rights holders tend to get very upset when the few restrictions in the license are not respected, especially in the case of modifications not being made available in source code form for GPLed software.
There are people who make a living prosecuting such cases.
Many of them involve Linux.So I certainly wouldn't say that the Linux community is muddying the waters here.
To me, it seems that they are very clear on what is and what isn't granted as part of the license.
Most GPL violations I know of are cases of the violator very obviously not abiding by the terms of the license.
Had they read the license, they would have known this.
Had they asked the rights holders, they would have known this.
But of course, licenses are something you just click through, right?
That's the way it works in the proprietary software world, anyway.
So, again, it's not the Linux community that is causing the confusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>lordsid</author>
	<datestamp>1267890540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing correct about your post is the title.</p><p>As a programmer I own all the of the code I write until I sign away that right. It is my companies fault that they did not require me to sign a contract giving up those rights. In fact I brought the issue up to them they still haven't done anything about it.</p><p>Try asking your dentist some time if you can have the x-rays they take of your teeth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing correct about your post is the title.As a programmer I own all the of the code I write until I sign away that right .
It is my companies fault that they did not require me to sign a contract giving up those rights .
In fact I brought the issue up to them they still have n't done anything about it.Try asking your dentist some time if you can have the x-rays they take of your teeth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing correct about your post is the title.As a programmer I own all the of the code I write until I sign away that right.
It is my companies fault that they did not require me to sign a contract giving up those rights.
In fact I brought the issue up to them they still haven't done anything about it.Try asking your dentist some time if you can have the x-rays they take of your teeth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528</id>
	<title>Evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267889100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Why do people think they own code just because they've paid for it</p></div> </blockquote><p>

yeah, I am used to paying for an item, and software happens to be an item (especially when it is delivered on a CD)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people think they own code just because they 've paid for it yeah , I am used to paying for an item , and software happens to be an item ( especially when it is delivered on a CD )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why do people think they own code just because they've paid for it 

yeah, I am used to paying for an item, and software happens to be an item (especially when it is delivered on a CD)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381630</id>
	<title>Re:Work For Hire</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1267900260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's pretty simple. If you are an employee, your employer owns your code. If you are a contractor you own your code unless your contract or agreement states that the work is a "work for hire" (or uses equivalent language). Requisite <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work\_for\_hire" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] reference.</p></div><p>Except that there is the requirement for the work for hire to be in a specifically enumerated list of things which computer programs do not fall under.  Unless you're a normal employee, then software cannot possibly be a work for hire... even if the contract specifically says it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty simple .
If you are an employee , your employer owns your code .
If you are a contractor you own your code unless your contract or agreement states that the work is a " work for hire " ( or uses equivalent language ) .
Requisite Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] reference.Except that there is the requirement for the work for hire to be in a specifically enumerated list of things which computer programs do not fall under .
Unless you 're a normal employee , then software can not possibly be a work for hire... even if the contract specifically says it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty simple.
If you are an employee, your employer owns your code.
If you are a contractor you own your code unless your contract or agreement states that the work is a "work for hire" (or uses equivalent language).
Requisite Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] reference.Except that there is the requirement for the work for hire to be in a specifically enumerated list of things which computer programs do not fall under.
Unless you're a normal employee, then software cannot possibly be a work for hire... even if the contract specifically says it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381668</id>
	<title>Meta Ownership</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1267900620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As many have noted, "the rules are what the contract says."  So, who owns the contract?  What if the plaintive did not have the right to use it?  Of course, a usage violation might be a separate issue, but when something is used without the right to use it, the product of that usage can be taken from the abuser.  For example, royalties from plagiarized music.
<br> <br>
What if a large law firm started copyrighting all sort of boilerplate for new types of contracts, not prior art but forward thinking stuff.  Then, like those companies that patent parts of developing standards, they went after everyone who negotiated such contracts in the future.  In the case of royalties on intellectual property, they might claim some of that revenue due to the 'power' of the contract that claimed it.  This may sound far fetched, but so did process patents.
<br> <br>
If you think that is whack, someday, these posts will be taxed.  No shit, free speech will not be 'free'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As many have noted , " the rules are what the contract says .
" So , who owns the contract ?
What if the plaintive did not have the right to use it ?
Of course , a usage violation might be a separate issue , but when something is used without the right to use it , the product of that usage can be taken from the abuser .
For example , royalties from plagiarized music .
What if a large law firm started copyrighting all sort of boilerplate for new types of contracts , not prior art but forward thinking stuff .
Then , like those companies that patent parts of developing standards , they went after everyone who negotiated such contracts in the future .
In the case of royalties on intellectual property , they might claim some of that revenue due to the 'power ' of the contract that claimed it .
This may sound far fetched , but so did process patents .
If you think that is whack , someday , these posts will be taxed .
No shit , free speech will not be 'free' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As many have noted, "the rules are what the contract says.
"  So, who owns the contract?
What if the plaintive did not have the right to use it?
Of course, a usage violation might be a separate issue, but when something is used without the right to use it, the product of that usage can be taken from the abuser.
For example, royalties from plagiarized music.
What if a large law firm started copyrighting all sort of boilerplate for new types of contracts, not prior art but forward thinking stuff.
Then, like those companies that patent parts of developing standards, they went after everyone who negotiated such contracts in the future.
In the case of royalties on intellectual property, they might claim some of that revenue due to the 'power' of the contract that claimed it.
This may sound far fetched, but so did process patents.
If you think that is whack, someday, these posts will be taxed.
No shit, free speech will not be 'free'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382216</id>
	<title>Re:Work For Hire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267905360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try looking at actual copyright law.</p><p>Many, indeed most, contractors fit the definition of employee under the general common law of agency.  This is what the statue is referring to - not the general notion of employee that you seem to be invoking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try looking at actual copyright law.Many , indeed most , contractors fit the definition of employee under the general common law of agency .
This is what the statue is referring to - not the general notion of employee that you seem to be invoking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try looking at actual copyright law.Many, indeed most, contractors fit the definition of employee under the general common law of agency.
This is what the statue is referring to - not the general notion of employee that you seem to be invoking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380662</id>
	<title>Re:same deal with photography</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267890420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's not the same. Photography is a specific, noted aberration in US copyright law under the work for hire section. You cannot translate what happens with photography to what happens with other types of work/media/etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's not the same .
Photography is a specific , noted aberration in US copyright law under the work for hire section .
You can not translate what happens with photography to what happens with other types of work/media/etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's not the same.
Photography is a specific, noted aberration in US copyright law under the work for hire section.
You cannot translate what happens with photography to what happens with other types of work/media/etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380650</id>
	<title>Work For Hire</title>
	<author>nato10</author>
	<datestamp>1267890360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's pretty simple. If you are an employee, your employer owns your code. If you are a contractor you own your code unless your contract or agreement states that the work is a "work for hire" (or uses equivalent language). Requisite <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work\_for\_hire" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] reference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty simple .
If you are an employee , your employer owns your code .
If you are a contractor you own your code unless your contract or agreement states that the work is a " work for hire " ( or uses equivalent language ) .
Requisite Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] reference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty simple.
If you are an employee, your employer owns your code.
If you are a contractor you own your code unless your contract or agreement states that the work is a "work for hire" (or uses equivalent language).
Requisite Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] reference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381970</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1267903560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because you didn't ask the right way.  The photographer makes money by selling copies of the pictures to your relatives and additional copies to you, as well (and incidentally provides the service of off-site backup, but it is not out of altruism, so I think we can safely ignore it as a mere side-benefit).  Therefore the rights to the images have value to him or her, and conversely the photographer can afford to offer a lower price for the circumstance where the rights are not assigned to you.</p><p>Regardless of which party has the "right to the rights" the ultimate assignment of the rights has an effect on the ultimate price, and many (though a diminishing number) photographers' standard offer assumes the rights will be assigned to the photographer.</p><p>You can't expect to get full control of the images for the same price as just making sure good quality pictures are available for subsequent purchase, so the proper thing to do is not to demand that the photographer assign all the rights to you, but to ask <em>how much</em> for the option where you get the rights instead of the photographer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because you did n't ask the right way .
The photographer makes money by selling copies of the pictures to your relatives and additional copies to you , as well ( and incidentally provides the service of off-site backup , but it is not out of altruism , so I think we can safely ignore it as a mere side-benefit ) .
Therefore the rights to the images have value to him or her , and conversely the photographer can afford to offer a lower price for the circumstance where the rights are not assigned to you.Regardless of which party has the " right to the rights " the ultimate assignment of the rights has an effect on the ultimate price , and many ( though a diminishing number ) photographers ' standard offer assumes the rights will be assigned to the photographer.You ca n't expect to get full control of the images for the same price as just making sure good quality pictures are available for subsequent purchase , so the proper thing to do is not to demand that the photographer assign all the rights to you , but to ask how much for the option where you get the rights instead of the photographer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because you didn't ask the right way.
The photographer makes money by selling copies of the pictures to your relatives and additional copies to you, as well (and incidentally provides the service of off-site backup, but it is not out of altruism, so I think we can safely ignore it as a mere side-benefit).
Therefore the rights to the images have value to him or her, and conversely the photographer can afford to offer a lower price for the circumstance where the rights are not assigned to you.Regardless of which party has the "right to the rights" the ultimate assignment of the rights has an effect on the ultimate price, and many (though a diminishing number) photographers' standard offer assumes the rights will be assigned to the photographer.You can't expect to get full control of the images for the same price as just making sure good quality pictures are available for subsequent purchase, so the proper thing to do is not to demand that the photographer assign all the rights to you, but to ask how much for the option where you get the rights instead of the photographer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381464</id>
	<title>Be careful when you "sell" your code</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267898460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it is technically and legally possible to fully transfer all rights to code you create, I would be very, very careful when doing so. I am currently in exactly this position and pretty much have to sign over the rights to code I create alone, but safeguards have to be put in place or you're pretty much putting yourself out of business over time.</p><p>Code, like any "creative" work, follows a style. You have a certain coding style, you have a certain knowledge, you have certain techniques that you know how to use and that you follow. This even transfers through various languages you might use, you will always follow the same style. The same naming conventions (provided you get to choose names and identification pre/suffixes), the order in which certain things are done, the way certain things are done, etc.</p><p>If you are not careful, you basically bar yourself from creating the same kind of code later in your life because it will invariably share similarities with your old code which you do not own anymore. Recreating the same functionality will invariably result in similar code which could be easily challenged in court, with a good chance to be identified as plagiarism.</p><p>Yes, legally you'd be illegally copying your own works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is technically and legally possible to fully transfer all rights to code you create , I would be very , very careful when doing so .
I am currently in exactly this position and pretty much have to sign over the rights to code I create alone , but safeguards have to be put in place or you 're pretty much putting yourself out of business over time.Code , like any " creative " work , follows a style .
You have a certain coding style , you have a certain knowledge , you have certain techniques that you know how to use and that you follow .
This even transfers through various languages you might use , you will always follow the same style .
The same naming conventions ( provided you get to choose names and identification pre/suffixes ) , the order in which certain things are done , the way certain things are done , etc.If you are not careful , you basically bar yourself from creating the same kind of code later in your life because it will invariably share similarities with your old code which you do not own anymore .
Recreating the same functionality will invariably result in similar code which could be easily challenged in court , with a good chance to be identified as plagiarism.Yes , legally you 'd be illegally copying your own works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is technically and legally possible to fully transfer all rights to code you create, I would be very, very careful when doing so.
I am currently in exactly this position and pretty much have to sign over the rights to code I create alone, but safeguards have to be put in place or you're pretty much putting yourself out of business over time.Code, like any "creative" work, follows a style.
You have a certain coding style, you have a certain knowledge, you have certain techniques that you know how to use and that you follow.
This even transfers through various languages you might use, you will always follow the same style.
The same naming conventions (provided you get to choose names and identification pre/suffixes), the order in which certain things are done, the way certain things are done, etc.If you are not careful, you basically bar yourself from creating the same kind of code later in your life because it will invariably share similarities with your old code which you do not own anymore.
Recreating the same functionality will invariably result in similar code which could be easily challenged in court, with a good chance to be identified as plagiarism.Yes, legally you'd be illegally copying your own works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384418</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267877580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But any you find who are willing to give you full size images and reproduction rights for anything less than a big pile of money are probably not the quality of photographer you want covering your wedding anyway.</p></div><p>No - they're <i>exactly</i> the photographers I want covering my wedding, because they're giving me what I want: pictures, with which I'm free to do whatever I want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But any you find who are willing to give you full size images and reproduction rights for anything less than a big pile of money are probably not the quality of photographer you want covering your wedding anyway.No - they 're exactly the photographers I want covering my wedding , because they 're giving me what I want : pictures , with which I 'm free to do whatever I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But any you find who are willing to give you full size images and reproduction rights for anything less than a big pile of money are probably not the quality of photographer you want covering your wedding anyway.No - they're exactly the photographers I want covering my wedding, because they're giving me what I want: pictures, with which I'm free to do whatever I want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381062</id>
	<title>I'm in that situation, at the other end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267894440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I paid for the development of a web application. It looks like I want it, and it does what I want it to. That's because I thought it up. And now the copyright belongs to the skillful developer who implemented it all? Ignoring that that there is nothing but a verbal agreement and there is no signed document, shouldn't the copyright belong at least in part to me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I paid for the development of a web application .
It looks like I want it , and it does what I want it to .
That 's because I thought it up .
And now the copyright belongs to the skillful developer who implemented it all ?
Ignoring that that there is nothing but a verbal agreement and there is no signed document , should n't the copyright belong at least in part to me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I paid for the development of a web application.
It looks like I want it, and it does what I want it to.
That's because I thought it up.
And now the copyright belongs to the skillful developer who implemented it all?
Ignoring that that there is nothing but a verbal agreement and there is no signed document, shouldn't the copyright belong at least in part to me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382396</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1267906440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the US has a screwed up view of who the copyright to photographs, engravings, portraits belong when those items are ordered for hire.</p><p>Canadian law makes so much more sense in this particular case:</p><p><a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-42/page-2.html#anchorbo-ga:l\_I-gb:s\_13" title="justice.gc.ca">Ownership of copyright</a> [justice.gc.ca]<br>13. (1) Subject to this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.</p><p>Engraving, photograph or portrait</p><p>(2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.</p><p>If I order someone to take my pictures, for any reason at all, and I pay them, I own the copyright to those pictures, and it is correct, I want to own the copyright to them, those are my pictures, I ordered them and all I want is service of taking them.</p><p>I had a case where I had a very unpleasant experience with a company in Ontario, they tried to get me to sign away my rights by stating in the original contract, that I will not be able to get the original files unless I sign some other document later on, which they did not even present to me at the moment of signing the original contract.  Obviously this is an illegal move, you can't bind me by a contract, which contains a clause, that says I will be bound by another contract later on, without showing the details of that other contract to me before I sign everything.  They made this mistake, I got the originals and the copyrights and I will never deal with them again.  There are some slimy people out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the US has a screwed up view of who the copyright to photographs , engravings , portraits belong when those items are ordered for hire.Canadian law makes so much more sense in this particular case : Ownership of copyright [ justice.gc.ca ] 13 .
( 1 ) Subject to this Act , the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.Engraving , photograph or portrait ( 2 ) Where , in the case of an engraving , photograph or portrait , the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration , and the consideration was paid , in pursuance of that order , in the absence of any agreement to the contrary , the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.If I order someone to take my pictures , for any reason at all , and I pay them , I own the copyright to those pictures , and it is correct , I want to own the copyright to them , those are my pictures , I ordered them and all I want is service of taking them.I had a case where I had a very unpleasant experience with a company in Ontario , they tried to get me to sign away my rights by stating in the original contract , that I will not be able to get the original files unless I sign some other document later on , which they did not even present to me at the moment of signing the original contract .
Obviously this is an illegal move , you ca n't bind me by a contract , which contains a clause , that says I will be bound by another contract later on , without showing the details of that other contract to me before I sign everything .
They made this mistake , I got the originals and the copyrights and I will never deal with them again .
There are some slimy people out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the US has a screwed up view of who the copyright to photographs, engravings, portraits belong when those items are ordered for hire.Canadian law makes so much more sense in this particular case:Ownership of copyright [justice.gc.ca]13.
(1) Subject to this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.Engraving, photograph or portrait(2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.If I order someone to take my pictures, for any reason at all, and I pay them, I own the copyright to those pictures, and it is correct, I want to own the copyright to them, those are my pictures, I ordered them and all I want is service of taking them.I had a case where I had a very unpleasant experience with a company in Ontario, they tried to get me to sign away my rights by stating in the original contract, that I will not be able to get the original files unless I sign some other document later on, which they did not even present to me at the moment of signing the original contract.
Obviously this is an illegal move, you can't bind me by a contract, which contains a clause, that says I will be bound by another contract later on, without showing the details of that other contract to me before I sign everything.
They made this mistake, I got the originals and the copyrights and I will never deal with them again.
There are some slimy people out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381516</id>
	<title>From the last paragraph of TFA:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267899000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This isn&rsquo;t about blackmail...</p></div></blockquote><p>Bullshit. Utter bullshit. You can give the client who wants to switch developers a copy of the source code to allow them to do so, without actually granting them ownership of your supposedly extremely valuable libraries. Write up a contract that says they're only permitted to use them in conjunction with the software you wrote for them (or future modifications thereof), are not permitted to resell, etc. There is a large middle ground between "total transfer of all rights" and "won't even show you the code so you can switch devs", and by presenting such a false dichotomy, you're absolutely trying to blackmail your client into staying with you. It's no wonder they want to leave, and I wish them luck in doing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This isn    t about blackmail...Bullshit .
Utter bullshit .
You can give the client who wants to switch developers a copy of the source code to allow them to do so , without actually granting them ownership of your supposedly extremely valuable libraries .
Write up a contract that says they 're only permitted to use them in conjunction with the software you wrote for them ( or future modifications thereof ) , are not permitted to resell , etc .
There is a large middle ground between " total transfer of all rights " and " wo n't even show you the code so you can switch devs " , and by presenting such a false dichotomy , you 're absolutely trying to blackmail your client into staying with you .
It 's no wonder they want to leave , and I wish them luck in doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn’t about blackmail...Bullshit.
Utter bullshit.
You can give the client who wants to switch developers a copy of the source code to allow them to do so, without actually granting them ownership of your supposedly extremely valuable libraries.
Write up a contract that says they're only permitted to use them in conjunction with the software you wrote for them (or future modifications thereof), are not permitted to resell, etc.
There is a large middle ground between "total transfer of all rights" and "won't even show you the code so you can switch devs", and by presenting such a false dichotomy, you're absolutely trying to blackmail your client into staying with you.
It's no wonder they want to leave, and I wish them luck in doing it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382726</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1267908300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not a business model its a marketing scam where costs are moved from the front end and hidden in the backend. Those days are over customers know what your costs are and wont stand to be RIPPED OFF by you charging 5 times your cost for prints that you push a button to order from a lab. Photographers brought this on themselves if they would have been honest and charged for the services they provide upfront instead of hiding it in print fees in order to scam extra money (the scam is the customer pays for the sitting/location work over and over again with each print).</p><p>PS I know several good photographers that have moved to an honest sitting fee and full rights to the buyer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not a business model its a marketing scam where costs are moved from the front end and hidden in the backend .
Those days are over customers know what your costs are and wont stand to be RIPPED OFF by you charging 5 times your cost for prints that you push a button to order from a lab .
Photographers brought this on themselves if they would have been honest and charged for the services they provide upfront instead of hiding it in print fees in order to scam extra money ( the scam is the customer pays for the sitting/location work over and over again with each print ) .PS I know several good photographers that have moved to an honest sitting fee and full rights to the buyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not a business model its a marketing scam where costs are moved from the front end and hidden in the backend.
Those days are over customers know what your costs are and wont stand to be RIPPED OFF by you charging 5 times your cost for prints that you push a button to order from a lab.
Photographers brought this on themselves if they would have been honest and charged for the services they provide upfront instead of hiding it in print fees in order to scam extra money (the scam is the customer pays for the sitting/location work over and over again with each print).PS I know several good photographers that have moved to an honest sitting fee and full rights to the buyer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380864</id>
	<title>My License for Web Dev</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1267892460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>License</strong> <p>Generally speaking the graphic design and of course the content (textual content, photographs you have licensed, etc.) of the site is yours to do with as you please, but the underlying source code (PHP and JavaScript) remain the intellectual property of Company, LLC.  You may modify them as needed, but you may not duplicate the software for use on other websites, and you may not distribute derivative works.  This license is transferrable as long as Company, LLC is notified in writing of the transfer, and may verify that the transfer has taken place.</p><p>I've never had a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>License Generally speaking the graphic design and of course the content ( textual content , photographs you have licensed , etc .
) of the site is yours to do with as you please , but the underlying source code ( PHP and JavaScript ) remain the intellectual property of Company , LLC .
You may modify them as needed , but you may not duplicate the software for use on other websites , and you may not distribute derivative works .
This license is transferrable as long as Company , LLC is notified in writing of the transfer , and may verify that the transfer has taken place.I 've never had a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>License Generally speaking the graphic design and of course the content (textual content, photographs you have licensed, etc.
) of the site is yours to do with as you please, but the underlying source code (PHP and JavaScript) remain the intellectual property of Company, LLC.
You may modify them as needed, but you may not duplicate the software for use on other websites, and you may not distribute derivative works.
This license is transferrable as long as Company, LLC is notified in writing of the transfer, and may verify that the transfer has taken place.I've never had a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384178</id>
	<title>Re:False dichotomy of Microsoft/Linux</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1267875420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Especially common for software development libraries, you could pay one price for the binaries, or a higher price for both binaries and source, but it no case was it ever understood that the product was not proprietary.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
But in this case, since the code and libraries are php, the "binaries" and the "source" are one and the same!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially common for software development libraries , you could pay one price for the binaries , or a higher price for both binaries and source , but it no case was it ever understood that the product was not proprietary .
But in this case , since the code and libraries are php , the " binaries " and the " source " are one and the same !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially common for software development libraries, you could pay one price for the binaries, or a higher price for both binaries and source, but it no case was it ever understood that the product was not proprietary.
But in this case, since the code and libraries are php, the "binaries" and the "source" are one and the same!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381072</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1267894500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work. When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints. I consider that a form of double jeopardy where I'm being forced to pay for something twice.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Agreed! I've had the same thing happen in the grocery store even. I hand the guy a five, and he says "sir, the total is ten dollars", and I tell him "what, you want me to pay for this stuff twice?!?" I stopped shopping there after that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone pays you to perform work , they own all rights to that work .
When I was married , we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed , and simply did n't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work , and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints .
I consider that a form of double jeopardy where I 'm being forced to pay for something twice .
Agreed ! I 've had the same thing happen in the grocery store even .
I hand the guy a five , and he says " sir , the total is ten dollars " , and I tell him " what , you want me to pay for this stuff twice ? ! ?
" I stopped shopping there after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work.
When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints.
I consider that a form of double jeopardy where I'm being forced to pay for something twice.
Agreed! I've had the same thing happen in the grocery store even.
I hand the guy a five, and he says "sir, the total is ten dollars", and I tell him "what, you want me to pay for this stuff twice?!?
" I stopped shopping there after that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384722</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267880220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry.  LordSid and Snowgirl are right.  <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0EKF/is\_n1963\_v39/ai\_13901633/" title="findarticles.com" rel="nofollow">If you hire someone as a 1099 contractor, the code produced belongs to the programmer, not the person hiring them.</a> [findarticles.com] Here's another good article regarding <a href="http://www.theiplawblog.com/archives/-copyright-law-ownership-issues-underlying-the-work-made-for-hire-doctrine.html" title="theiplawblog.com" rel="nofollow">works for hire.</a> [theiplawblog.com]  These people thought they could hire the guy cheap as a 1099, not pay benefits or taxes, and then take ownership of libraries he produced years before meeting them?  If I were Kevin Partner, I would just tell them to shove it.  These people are unbelievable.

</p><p>If they didn't pay as agreed, their ass would be in court.  They'd not only pay what they owed with interest, but they'd be on the hook for legal fees and court costs as well.  If I didn't think they were big enough to withstand that without folding, I'd sell it to a collection agency for whatever I could get.  Then at least I would be comforted knowing I made their credit into shit for doing that and that someone was harassing them daily for the rest of eternity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry .
LordSid and Snowgirl are right .
If you hire someone as a 1099 contractor , the code produced belongs to the programmer , not the person hiring them .
[ findarticles.com ] Here 's another good article regarding works for hire .
[ theiplawblog.com ] These people thought they could hire the guy cheap as a 1099 , not pay benefits or taxes , and then take ownership of libraries he produced years before meeting them ?
If I were Kevin Partner , I would just tell them to shove it .
These people are unbelievable .
If they did n't pay as agreed , their ass would be in court .
They 'd not only pay what they owed with interest , but they 'd be on the hook for legal fees and court costs as well .
If I did n't think they were big enough to withstand that without folding , I 'd sell it to a collection agency for whatever I could get .
Then at least I would be comforted knowing I made their credit into shit for doing that and that someone was harassing them daily for the rest of eternity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry.
LordSid and Snowgirl are right.
If you hire someone as a 1099 contractor, the code produced belongs to the programmer, not the person hiring them.
[findarticles.com] Here's another good article regarding works for hire.
[theiplawblog.com]  These people thought they could hire the guy cheap as a 1099, not pay benefits or taxes, and then take ownership of libraries he produced years before meeting them?
If I were Kevin Partner, I would just tell them to shove it.
These people are unbelievable.
If they didn't pay as agreed, their ass would be in court.
They'd not only pay what they owed with interest, but they'd be on the hook for legal fees and court costs as well.
If I didn't think they were big enough to withstand that without folding, I'd sell it to a collection agency for whatever I could get.
Then at least I would be comforted knowing I made their credit into shit for doing that and that someone was harassing them daily for the rest of eternity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383332</id>
	<title>Neither party "owns" the code.</title>
	<author>FellowConspirator</author>
	<datestamp>1267869060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Code can't be "owned" as it's not property. If you are in the USA, if you hire someone to write code for you, it would be considered a work-for-hire situation. In that case, the author and the payor would share a non-exclusive copyright on the code (unless they had a contract that specifically transferred the copyright explicitly to the payor). Strictly speaking, copyrighted works are effectively "owned" by the general public, who then offers you a limited exclusive right to making copies of, making derivative works of, or performing the work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Code ca n't be " owned " as it 's not property .
If you are in the USA , if you hire someone to write code for you , it would be considered a work-for-hire situation .
In that case , the author and the payor would share a non-exclusive copyright on the code ( unless they had a contract that specifically transferred the copyright explicitly to the payor ) .
Strictly speaking , copyrighted works are effectively " owned " by the general public , who then offers you a limited exclusive right to making copies of , making derivative works of , or performing the work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Code can't be "owned" as it's not property.
If you are in the USA, if you hire someone to write code for you, it would be considered a work-for-hire situation.
In that case, the author and the payor would share a non-exclusive copyright on the code (unless they had a contract that specifically transferred the copyright explicitly to the payor).
Strictly speaking, copyrighted works are effectively "owned" by the general public, who then offers you a limited exclusive right to making copies of, making derivative works of, or performing the work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267892700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wedding photography has a very well established business plan where the base fee covers the basic costs of the photographer, and the prints supply the profit. You are not paying twice for the same thing - the real cost has simply been split up in a way which is convenient to both the photographer and the customer. As it is not exactly an uncompetitive industry, and you don't see many wedding photogs turning up in Porsches, i'd say the pricing and model were pretty fair. <br> <br>

The reasons for the model relate to the photographer having control over his/her reputation, not to screwing the customer - when photos were still taken on film, the quality of the final print had as much to do with the printing process as the actual taking of the picture. Retaining control over that was important to the reputation of the photographer - if he actually handed you a stack of negatives and let you have them printed by any old mail order company, the lousy final prints would impact his reputation. You *could* argue it is an outdated model now, with the rise of electronic media, but most couples still want prints, and the same problem actually still remains - giving out jpg's and letting people print at home or from a cheap online outlet is going to result in exactly the same quality/reputation problem as in the film days.<br> <br>

The industry is adapting to modern times though, so you will now find some wedding photogs will include a DVD of low resolution images for you to put on the web (and many will host a web presence for you as part of the package). But any you find who are willing to give you full size images and reproduction rights for anything less than a big pile of money are probably not the quality of photographer you want covering your wedding anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wedding photography has a very well established business plan where the base fee covers the basic costs of the photographer , and the prints supply the profit .
You are not paying twice for the same thing - the real cost has simply been split up in a way which is convenient to both the photographer and the customer .
As it is not exactly an uncompetitive industry , and you do n't see many wedding photogs turning up in Porsches , i 'd say the pricing and model were pretty fair .
The reasons for the model relate to the photographer having control over his/her reputation , not to screwing the customer - when photos were still taken on film , the quality of the final print had as much to do with the printing process as the actual taking of the picture .
Retaining control over that was important to the reputation of the photographer - if he actually handed you a stack of negatives and let you have them printed by any old mail order company , the lousy final prints would impact his reputation .
You * could * argue it is an outdated model now , with the rise of electronic media , but most couples still want prints , and the same problem actually still remains - giving out jpg 's and letting people print at home or from a cheap online outlet is going to result in exactly the same quality/reputation problem as in the film days .
The industry is adapting to modern times though , so you will now find some wedding photogs will include a DVD of low resolution images for you to put on the web ( and many will host a web presence for you as part of the package ) .
But any you find who are willing to give you full size images and reproduction rights for anything less than a big pile of money are probably not the quality of photographer you want covering your wedding anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wedding photography has a very well established business plan where the base fee covers the basic costs of the photographer, and the prints supply the profit.
You are not paying twice for the same thing - the real cost has simply been split up in a way which is convenient to both the photographer and the customer.
As it is not exactly an uncompetitive industry, and you don't see many wedding photogs turning up in Porsches, i'd say the pricing and model were pretty fair.
The reasons for the model relate to the photographer having control over his/her reputation, not to screwing the customer - when photos were still taken on film, the quality of the final print had as much to do with the printing process as the actual taking of the picture.
Retaining control over that was important to the reputation of the photographer - if he actually handed you a stack of negatives and let you have them printed by any old mail order company, the lousy final prints would impact his reputation.
You *could* argue it is an outdated model now, with the rise of electronic media, but most couples still want prints, and the same problem actually still remains - giving out jpg's and letting people print at home or from a cheap online outlet is going to result in exactly the same quality/reputation problem as in the film days.
The industry is adapting to modern times though, so you will now find some wedding photogs will include a DVD of low resolution images for you to put on the web (and many will host a web presence for you as part of the package).
But any you find who are willing to give you full size images and reproduction rights for anything less than a big pile of money are probably not the quality of photographer you want covering your wedding anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383410</id>
	<title>Copyright assignment is required</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267869660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am going through this now.</p><p>A few years ago I was approached by a guy to build an application to handle food processing within restaurants. We agreed that I would be well under my normal rates and that in exchange he would give me a 20\% stake in his new company.</p><p>He wrote up a basic shareholders agreement that stated things like first right of refusal if I choose to sell my shares etc. However nowhere did the agreement mention copyright assignment of the completed application. I knew that agreement probably should have, but I decided to keep quiet in the event things went south and I could just take my code and walk.</p><p>Well, after a couple years things did go south and sure enough I walked. However, my ex partner (who turned out to be your run of the mill crook) was convinced he owned the code since he had paid for the development. This application was pretty cool and had some other potential uses and wasn&rsquo;t just going to give it away. After consulting a lawyer and spending about 10k in consultations and doing a ton of independent research I learned that he absolutely DOES NOT own the application, more specifically the copyright.</p><p>Unless I was an employee or I was making enhancements to an existing application the he already owned (known as a derivative work) he does not own the copyright. The lawyer also explained that being a shareholder is not the same as being an employee and I was free and clear.</p><p>Thankfully software does not fall under the &ldquo;work for hire&rdquo; concept and that the copyright assignment must be addressed before any work is done using very clear language defining what is being created and that you as the author intend to transfer the copyright once the application is completed. It is usually wise to include language that says you will be retaining your rights to all &ldquo;background technology&rdquo;. These are your pre-build libraries all programmers have accumulated over the years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going through this now.A few years ago I was approached by a guy to build an application to handle food processing within restaurants .
We agreed that I would be well under my normal rates and that in exchange he would give me a 20 \ % stake in his new company.He wrote up a basic shareholders agreement that stated things like first right of refusal if I choose to sell my shares etc .
However nowhere did the agreement mention copyright assignment of the completed application .
I knew that agreement probably should have , but I decided to keep quiet in the event things went south and I could just take my code and walk.Well , after a couple years things did go south and sure enough I walked .
However , my ex partner ( who turned out to be your run of the mill crook ) was convinced he owned the code since he had paid for the development .
This application was pretty cool and had some other potential uses and wasn    t just going to give it away .
After consulting a lawyer and spending about 10k in consultations and doing a ton of independent research I learned that he absolutely DOES NOT own the application , more specifically the copyright.Unless I was an employee or I was making enhancements to an existing application the he already owned ( known as a derivative work ) he does not own the copyright .
The lawyer also explained that being a shareholder is not the same as being an employee and I was free and clear.Thankfully software does not fall under the    work for hire    concept and that the copyright assignment must be addressed before any work is done using very clear language defining what is being created and that you as the author intend to transfer the copyright once the application is completed .
It is usually wise to include language that says you will be retaining your rights to all    background technology    .
These are your pre-build libraries all programmers have accumulated over the years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going through this now.A few years ago I was approached by a guy to build an application to handle food processing within restaurants.
We agreed that I would be well under my normal rates and that in exchange he would give me a 20\% stake in his new company.He wrote up a basic shareholders agreement that stated things like first right of refusal if I choose to sell my shares etc.
However nowhere did the agreement mention copyright assignment of the completed application.
I knew that agreement probably should have, but I decided to keep quiet in the event things went south and I could just take my code and walk.Well, after a couple years things did go south and sure enough I walked.
However, my ex partner (who turned out to be your run of the mill crook) was convinced he owned the code since he had paid for the development.
This application was pretty cool and had some other potential uses and wasn’t just going to give it away.
After consulting a lawyer and spending about 10k in consultations and doing a ton of independent research I learned that he absolutely DOES NOT own the application, more specifically the copyright.Unless I was an employee or I was making enhancements to an existing application the he already owned (known as a derivative work) he does not own the copyright.
The lawyer also explained that being a shareholder is not the same as being an employee and I was free and clear.Thankfully software does not fall under the “work for hire” concept and that the copyright assignment must be addressed before any work is done using very clear language defining what is being created and that you as the author intend to transfer the copyright once the application is completed.
It is usually wise to include language that says you will be retaining your rights to all “background technology”.
These are your pre-build libraries all programmers have accumulated over the years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383070</id>
	<title>Re:Work for Hire</title>
	<author>jamie(really)</author>
	<datestamp>1267867320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you pay them as employees also, with W-2's and withholding or do you have a special IRS-proof scheme that you've actually tested with the IRS? Or are you not in the USA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you pay them as employees also , with W-2 's and withholding or do you have a special IRS-proof scheme that you 've actually tested with the IRS ?
Or are you not in the USA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you pay them as employees also, with W-2's and withholding or do you have a special IRS-proof scheme that you've actually tested with the IRS?
Or are you not in the USA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380610</id>
	<title>Depends upon contract</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267889940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I hire software to be written under a work-for-hire agreement, I sure as hell own it, barring pieces that are used that fall under the ownership of others. Original code plus the arrangement of licensed code is what I'm paying for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I hire software to be written under a work-for-hire agreement , I sure as hell own it , barring pieces that are used that fall under the ownership of others .
Original code plus the arrangement of licensed code is what I 'm paying for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I hire software to be written under a work-for-hire agreement, I sure as hell own it, barring pieces that are used that fall under the ownership of others.
Original code plus the arrangement of licensed code is what I'm paying for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382034</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1267904160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Try asking your dentist some time if you can have the x-rays they take of your teeth.</p></div><p>Never asked my dentist (when I got X-rayed prior to root canal...), but I'm sure I could have gotten them if I asked.</p><p>
Case in point I've got X-rays done of other parts of my body (neck), and there I got the pictures on a CD-Rom without even asking.</p><p>
Or is this "withholding the pictures" a special thing with dentists? If so, why?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try asking your dentist some time if you can have the x-rays they take of your teeth.Never asked my dentist ( when I got X-rayed prior to root canal... ) , but I 'm sure I could have gotten them if I asked .
Case in point I 've got X-rays done of other parts of my body ( neck ) , and there I got the pictures on a CD-Rom without even asking .
Or is this " withholding the pictures " a special thing with dentists ?
If so , why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try asking your dentist some time if you can have the x-rays they take of your teeth.Never asked my dentist (when I got X-rayed prior to root canal...), but I'm sure I could have gotten them if I asked.
Case in point I've got X-rays done of other parts of my body (neck), and there I got the pictures on a CD-Rom without even asking.
Or is this "withholding the pictures" a special thing with dentists?
If so, why?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380770</id>
	<title>This is why people simple outsource to India</title>
	<author>ScaredOfTheMan</author>
	<datestamp>1267891260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to start a flame war here, but to give my opinion as IT person who doesn't code (scripts don't count right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

I read 8 different versions of who owns the codes, depending on state, and contracts, even sales tax got in there.  Reading all this made me think, wow I would go to elance, find a shop in India tell them I own the code and let them at it.  Knowing full well they will probably keep it for themselves over there, while I have full rights over here.  Done Simple.

Yes it would probably not be as good and would take 2X longer to write (I read slashdot you know), but I don't have the headache that apparently accompanies hiring a local subcontractor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to start a flame war here , but to give my opinion as IT person who does n't code ( scripts do n't count right ; ) I read 8 different versions of who owns the codes , depending on state , and contracts , even sales tax got in there .
Reading all this made me think , wow I would go to elance , find a shop in India tell them I own the code and let them at it .
Knowing full well they will probably keep it for themselves over there , while I have full rights over here .
Done Simple .
Yes it would probably not be as good and would take 2X longer to write ( I read slashdot you know ) , but I do n't have the headache that apparently accompanies hiring a local subcontractor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to start a flame war here, but to give my opinion as IT person who doesn't code (scripts don't count right ;)

I read 8 different versions of who owns the codes, depending on state, and contracts, even sales tax got in there.
Reading all this made me think, wow I would go to elance, find a shop in India tell them I own the code and let them at it.
Knowing full well they will probably keep it for themselves over there, while I have full rights over here.
Done Simple.
Yes it would probably not be as good and would take 2X longer to write (I read slashdot you know), but I don't have the headache that apparently accompanies hiring a local subcontractor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381188</id>
	<title>Risk management.</title>
	<author>sulliwan</author>
	<datestamp>1267895940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I buy a software project from you, I need assurance that I can keep using that project and doing maintenance on it no matter what happens to you or your business. If you die tomorrow, I will need the source code and the ability to modify it as I see fit for the contract to not carry a significant business risk for me. Signing over rights (apart from authorship and other inalienable rights) to your software should be a standard part of any development contract, in case this is not done and you keep ownership, I also expect free maintenance on the code and significantly lower costs(as is common when licensing general use software, such as MS Office, etc). If this piece of software is critical for me, for example part of a contract I made with a client of mine who needs assurance that the software keeps working then it is not possible for me to allow you to keep ownership, sorry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I buy a software project from you , I need assurance that I can keep using that project and doing maintenance on it no matter what happens to you or your business .
If you die tomorrow , I will need the source code and the ability to modify it as I see fit for the contract to not carry a significant business risk for me .
Signing over rights ( apart from authorship and other inalienable rights ) to your software should be a standard part of any development contract , in case this is not done and you keep ownership , I also expect free maintenance on the code and significantly lower costs ( as is common when licensing general use software , such as MS Office , etc ) .
If this piece of software is critical for me , for example part of a contract I made with a client of mine who needs assurance that the software keeps working then it is not possible for me to allow you to keep ownership , sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I buy a software project from you, I need assurance that I can keep using that project and doing maintenance on it no matter what happens to you or your business.
If you die tomorrow, I will need the source code and the ability to modify it as I see fit for the contract to not carry a significant business risk for me.
Signing over rights (apart from authorship and other inalienable rights) to your software should be a standard part of any development contract, in case this is not done and you keep ownership, I also expect free maintenance on the code and significantly lower costs(as is common when licensing general use software, such as MS Office, etc).
If this piece of software is critical for me, for example part of a contract I made with a client of mine who needs assurance that the software keeps working then it is not possible for me to allow you to keep ownership, sorry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382020</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267904100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So... wait. All those contracts that people post on RentACoder stating "the work is for hire, all rights transfer to the buyer, blah blah" is just a bunch of bullshit? Because if so, RentACoder just got a lot more appealing to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So... wait. All those contracts that people post on RentACoder stating " the work is for hire , all rights transfer to the buyer , blah blah " is just a bunch of bullshit ?
Because if so , RentACoder just got a lot more appealing to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... wait. All those contracts that people post on RentACoder stating "the work is for hire, all rights transfer to the buyer, blah blah" is just a bunch of bullshit?
Because if so, RentACoder just got a lot more appealing to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382090</id>
	<title>This is stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267904520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext> If i pay (or not) for software, i should own everything i need to fix or modify it. To use the plumbing example, yes you could ask him to leave his tools, he would probably say no, but either way, you own the work that he did since you own the pipes. If you went out and bought your own tools you could modify, fix, and update his work all you want. Im not really sure the author thought those examples through very well, as far as i know the bible is in the public domain , and as i just explained the plumbing thing doesnt really work. I hope he gets a nasty email from RMS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If i pay ( or not ) for software , i should own everything i need to fix or modify it .
To use the plumbing example , yes you could ask him to leave his tools , he would probably say no , but either way , you own the work that he did since you own the pipes .
If you went out and bought your own tools you could modify , fix , and update his work all you want .
Im not really sure the author thought those examples through very well , as far as i know the bible is in the public domain , and as i just explained the plumbing thing doesnt really work .
I hope he gets a nasty email from RMS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If i pay (or not) for software, i should own everything i need to fix or modify it.
To use the plumbing example, yes you could ask him to leave his tools, he would probably say no, but either way, you own the work that he did since you own the pipes.
If you went out and bought your own tools you could modify, fix, and update his work all you want.
Im not really sure the author thought those examples through very well, as far as i know the bible is in the public domain , and as i just explained the plumbing thing doesnt really work.
I hope he gets a nasty email from RMS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381626</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1267900200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is long established that the person who owns the film at the time the photos are taken owns it afterwords unless there is a specific contract to the contrary. Any other approach just becomes a legal nightmare.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is long established that the person who owns the film at the time the photos are taken owns it afterwords unless there is a specific contract to the contrary .
Any other approach just becomes a legal nightmare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is long established that the person who owns the film at the time the photos are taken owns it afterwords unless there is a specific contract to the contrary.
Any other approach just becomes a legal nightmare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31387492</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267995540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How so? There are quite a lot of opinions on display here, some more informed than others, but there is certainly no consensus on this discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How so ?
There are quite a lot of opinions on display here , some more informed than others , but there is certainly no consensus on this discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How so?
There are quite a lot of opinions on display here, some more informed than others, but there is certainly no consensus on this discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383020</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267867020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's getting to the point. Certainly the client owns the end product (which may or may not be compiled). They might also get the source if it's in the contract. They might or might not have the rights to use that source for another purpose. Almost certainly the developer retains the right to re-use the source elsewhere. The developer might even have the right to make the app a bit more generic and market it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's getting to the point .
Certainly the client owns the end product ( which may or may not be compiled ) .
They might also get the source if it 's in the contract .
They might or might not have the rights to use that source for another purpose .
Almost certainly the developer retains the right to re-use the source elsewhere .
The developer might even have the right to make the app a bit more generic and market it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's getting to the point.
Certainly the client owns the end product (which may or may not be compiled).
They might also get the source if it's in the contract.
They might or might not have the rights to use that source for another purpose.
Almost certainly the developer retains the right to re-use the source elsewhere.
The developer might even have the right to make the app a bit more generic and market it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380620</id>
	<title>Slippery slopes...</title>
	<author>ProppaT</author>
	<datestamp>1267890000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a weird and slippery slope.  I don't think that anybody feels that because they buy software they own rights to the source code, to edit code and distribute it, etc.  But they do own the rights to use or utilize the software as they see fit within the confines of common copyright laws.</p><p>The author uses the example that you can buy a book or movie, but you don't own the rights to that book or movie.  And that's fine, I think we'll all agree to that.  However, if I buy a replication of a piece of art, a book, etc., I'm allowed to vandalize/defile it in any nature I wish as long as its for personal use and it is not distributed.</p><p>I'm not sure that I like the slippery slope that a lot of developers are trying to tread these days.  Notice my use of the words "use" and "utilize."  These are two very different words in the English language.  Use means, well, to use something.  Utilize means to use something for a purpose in which it wasn't originally intended.  I can go to the hardware store and buy thousands of different tools and items for home repairs and various other projects.  Many times I'll buy patented items because they almost meet my uses.  I modify and "utilize" them for the specific task at hand.  And this is fine, as you don't see me on the street corner trying to sell modified black and decker pecker wreckers at a markup.  I think think that 1) that would infringe patents, 2) that would infringe registered trademarks and patents, and 3) I'd probably go to jail for trying to sell "pecker wreckers."</p><p>In the end, I have a product that meets my requirements and the vendor makes money off of my purchase.  Everyone is happy, right?  I think that this is the hurdle that software developers have to get over.  As long as people buy your software, that's all you should care about.  Let them modify it to their hearts content as long as they're not selling it for profit.  In fact, possibly learn a lesson and integrate some of these features in your next version to appeal to a larger market.  I think this is mutually beneficial in the long run.  EULA are trash and need to go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a weird and slippery slope .
I do n't think that anybody feels that because they buy software they own rights to the source code , to edit code and distribute it , etc .
But they do own the rights to use or utilize the software as they see fit within the confines of common copyright laws.The author uses the example that you can buy a book or movie , but you do n't own the rights to that book or movie .
And that 's fine , I think we 'll all agree to that .
However , if I buy a replication of a piece of art , a book , etc. , I 'm allowed to vandalize/defile it in any nature I wish as long as its for personal use and it is not distributed.I 'm not sure that I like the slippery slope that a lot of developers are trying to tread these days .
Notice my use of the words " use " and " utilize .
" These are two very different words in the English language .
Use means , well , to use something .
Utilize means to use something for a purpose in which it was n't originally intended .
I can go to the hardware store and buy thousands of different tools and items for home repairs and various other projects .
Many times I 'll buy patented items because they almost meet my uses .
I modify and " utilize " them for the specific task at hand .
And this is fine , as you do n't see me on the street corner trying to sell modified black and decker pecker wreckers at a markup .
I think think that 1 ) that would infringe patents , 2 ) that would infringe registered trademarks and patents , and 3 ) I 'd probably go to jail for trying to sell " pecker wreckers .
" In the end , I have a product that meets my requirements and the vendor makes money off of my purchase .
Everyone is happy , right ?
I think that this is the hurdle that software developers have to get over .
As long as people buy your software , that 's all you should care about .
Let them modify it to their hearts content as long as they 're not selling it for profit .
In fact , possibly learn a lesson and integrate some of these features in your next version to appeal to a larger market .
I think this is mutually beneficial in the long run .
EULA are trash and need to go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a weird and slippery slope.
I don't think that anybody feels that because they buy software they own rights to the source code, to edit code and distribute it, etc.
But they do own the rights to use or utilize the software as they see fit within the confines of common copyright laws.The author uses the example that you can buy a book or movie, but you don't own the rights to that book or movie.
And that's fine, I think we'll all agree to that.
However, if I buy a replication of a piece of art, a book, etc., I'm allowed to vandalize/defile it in any nature I wish as long as its for personal use and it is not distributed.I'm not sure that I like the slippery slope that a lot of developers are trying to tread these days.
Notice my use of the words "use" and "utilize.
"  These are two very different words in the English language.
Use means, well, to use something.
Utilize means to use something for a purpose in which it wasn't originally intended.
I can go to the hardware store and buy thousands of different tools and items for home repairs and various other projects.
Many times I'll buy patented items because they almost meet my uses.
I modify and "utilize" them for the specific task at hand.
And this is fine, as you don't see me on the street corner trying to sell modified black and decker pecker wreckers at a markup.
I think think that 1) that would infringe patents, 2) that would infringe registered trademarks and patents, and 3) I'd probably go to jail for trying to sell "pecker wreckers.
"In the end, I have a product that meets my requirements and the vendor makes money off of my purchase.
Everyone is happy, right?
I think that this is the hurdle that software developers have to get over.
As long as people buy your software, that's all you should care about.
Let them modify it to their hearts content as long as they're not selling it for profit.
In fact, possibly learn a lesson and integrate some of these features in your next version to appeal to a larger market.
I think this is mutually beneficial in the long run.
EULA are trash and need to go away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380690</id>
	<title>Give them license to modify the code</title>
	<author>Cheburator-2</author>
	<datestamp>1267890600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, client expects to be able to use and MODIFY code you've done for them, both physically and legally. Who owns the code - is the second question. They don't want to own your library - they just want THE LICENSE allowing them to see, modify and use that modified code. It is the same thing as open source, except that they don't get the right to redistribute your library.</p><p>Don't be a dick, just give them that license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , client expects to be able to use and MODIFY code you 've done for them , both physically and legally .
Who owns the code - is the second question .
They do n't want to own your library - they just want THE LICENSE allowing them to see , modify and use that modified code .
It is the same thing as open source , except that they do n't get the right to redistribute your library.Do n't be a dick , just give them that license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, client expects to be able to use and MODIFY code you've done for them, both physically and legally.
Who owns the code - is the second question.
They don't want to own your library - they just want THE LICENSE allowing them to see, modify and use that modified code.
It is the same thing as open source, except that they don't get the right to redistribute your library.Don't be a dick, just give them that license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382436</id>
	<title>One phrase:  non exclusive</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1267906620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"non-exclusive".  It should be in
all your contracts, and both sides
should know what it means.  Unless you
are working as a salaried employee, or they
paid you a HUGE AMMOUNT, then it should always
be non-exclusive.  Simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" non-exclusive " .
It should be in all your contracts , and both sides should know what it means .
Unless you are working as a salaried employee , or they paid you a HUGE AMMOUNT , then it should always be non-exclusive .
Simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"non-exclusive".
It should be in
all your contracts, and both sides
should know what it means.
Unless you
are working as a salaried employee, or they
paid you a HUGE AMMOUNT, then it should always
be non-exclusive.
Simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>goombah99</author>
	<datestamp>1267890960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the builder or architect own my house?  No, but he might own the floor plan to my house.  He might not too.  it depends on what I paid for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the builder or architect own my house ?
No , but he might own the floor plan to my house .
He might not too .
it depends on what I paid for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the builder or architect own my house?
No, but he might own the floor plan to my house.
He might not too.
it depends on what I paid for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380644</id>
	<title>A (very) brief primer</title>
	<author>CajunArson</author>
	<datestamp>1267890300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IAAL, but the issues here are complex so this is NOT advice for any particular person in any particular situation:<br>
   If what you are interested in is owning a copyright to source code there are two ways for a "customer" to get the copyright:<br>
   1. If the software is a work made for hire.  "Work for hire" is a legal definition (see 17 U.S.C. 101), with two different paths.  The first path is for the software to be written by an <b>employee within the scope of employment</b> of the organization claiming copyright. Employee specifically does NOT mean an independent contractor, and code written by a contractor is <b>NOT</b> a work for hire!  The definition of an employee goes into all sorts of common-law factors a court will look at, but the shorthand is the tax status of an employee with the IRS.... merely calling a contractor an employee is not enough.  Also, the work has to be made within the normal scope of employment, so no, the employer cannot claim copyright as a work for hire for something the employee did outside of work.   In fact, even if the employee works for the organization as a regular employee, if writing code is not within the normal scope of employment it still might not be a work for hire (up to the courts to decide if things go south).   While some works for hire can be done by an independent contractors along with a specific written agreement, software code generally does not fall into any of the specifically enumerated categories where these written agreements work (see 17 U.S.C. 101 for more details).<br>
     Interesting: Technically, code written for a big company like MS or IBM by the armies of independent contractors are NOT works made for hire.  See point 2 for how the companies can still get rights.</p><p>
  2. Assignment of Copyright:  This is much more common for any work not directly made by an employee.  There is a written agreement assigning ownership of the copyright to the contracting organization.  The usual rules of contract law cover what is and is not within the scope of the assignment.  Assignments can be non-exclusive (we can do what we want with the code, but the developer is also free to do what he wants), or more commonly, exclusive (the assignee getting rights to the code has full control, the original developer loses his rights to that specific work).  So is there any difference from a work made for hire? <b>YES!</b>  In a work made for hire, the organization OWNS the copyright for the entire length of the copyright term.  However, in an assignment, Copyright law specifically splits the copyright term into two parts.  An assignment made when the work is created transfers rights to the assignee (usually the company) for about 1/2 the term (the time varies depending upon whether the author dies and some other factors, but it is usually a long time &gt; 30 years).  The copyright <b>automatically</b> reverts back to the original author, and the assignment agreement <b>cannot</b> override this rule.   The law is written this way to give the authors a "second bite at the apple" in case a work they assign away for peanuts becomes very valuable later.  The author can extend the copyright to the second half of its term by paying a nominal fee, and can then go out and the assignee loses all previously held rights.</p><p>
    The upshot for the software industry: Any assigned copyrights will eventually revert to the authors. Now, by the time the reversion occurs most software will be long out of date, but as we all know there is plenty of software out there that lingers for a LONG time, and non-employees DO get there rights to the underlying code back.</p><p>
  One other point:  Binary code gets a separate copyright from the underyling source code. But binary code is a derivative work of the underyling source code, so even if the developer never compiles code he writes, the binary distribution using that code would violate the copyright of the original code if ther</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IAAL , but the issues here are complex so this is NOT advice for any particular person in any particular situation : If what you are interested in is owning a copyright to source code there are two ways for a " customer " to get the copyright : 1 .
If the software is a work made for hire .
" Work for hire " is a legal definition ( see 17 U.S.C .
101 ) , with two different paths .
The first path is for the software to be written by an employee within the scope of employment of the organization claiming copyright .
Employee specifically does NOT mean an independent contractor , and code written by a contractor is NOT a work for hire !
The definition of an employee goes into all sorts of common-law factors a court will look at , but the shorthand is the tax status of an employee with the IRS.... merely calling a contractor an employee is not enough .
Also , the work has to be made within the normal scope of employment , so no , the employer can not claim copyright as a work for hire for something the employee did outside of work .
In fact , even if the employee works for the organization as a regular employee , if writing code is not within the normal scope of employment it still might not be a work for hire ( up to the courts to decide if things go south ) .
While some works for hire can be done by an independent contractors along with a specific written agreement , software code generally does not fall into any of the specifically enumerated categories where these written agreements work ( see 17 U.S.C .
101 for more details ) .
Interesting : Technically , code written for a big company like MS or IBM by the armies of independent contractors are NOT works made for hire .
See point 2 for how the companies can still get rights .
2. Assignment of Copyright : This is much more common for any work not directly made by an employee .
There is a written agreement assigning ownership of the copyright to the contracting organization .
The usual rules of contract law cover what is and is not within the scope of the assignment .
Assignments can be non-exclusive ( we can do what we want with the code , but the developer is also free to do what he wants ) , or more commonly , exclusive ( the assignee getting rights to the code has full control , the original developer loses his rights to that specific work ) .
So is there any difference from a work made for hire ?
YES ! In a work made for hire , the organization OWNS the copyright for the entire length of the copyright term .
However , in an assignment , Copyright law specifically splits the copyright term into two parts .
An assignment made when the work is created transfers rights to the assignee ( usually the company ) for about 1/2 the term ( the time varies depending upon whether the author dies and some other factors , but it is usually a long time &gt; 30 years ) .
The copyright automatically reverts back to the original author , and the assignment agreement can not override this rule .
The law is written this way to give the authors a " second bite at the apple " in case a work they assign away for peanuts becomes very valuable later .
The author can extend the copyright to the second half of its term by paying a nominal fee , and can then go out and the assignee loses all previously held rights .
The upshot for the software industry : Any assigned copyrights will eventually revert to the authors .
Now , by the time the reversion occurs most software will be long out of date , but as we all know there is plenty of software out there that lingers for a LONG time , and non-employees DO get there rights to the underlying code back .
One other point : Binary code gets a separate copyright from the underyling source code .
But binary code is a derivative work of the underyling source code , so even if the developer never compiles code he writes , the binary distribution using that code would violate the copyright of the original code if ther</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IAAL, but the issues here are complex so this is NOT advice for any particular person in any particular situation:
   If what you are interested in is owning a copyright to source code there are two ways for a "customer" to get the copyright:
   1.
If the software is a work made for hire.
"Work for hire" is a legal definition (see 17 U.S.C.
101), with two different paths.
The first path is for the software to be written by an employee within the scope of employment of the organization claiming copyright.
Employee specifically does NOT mean an independent contractor, and code written by a contractor is NOT a work for hire!
The definition of an employee goes into all sorts of common-law factors a court will look at, but the shorthand is the tax status of an employee with the IRS.... merely calling a contractor an employee is not enough.
Also, the work has to be made within the normal scope of employment, so no, the employer cannot claim copyright as a work for hire for something the employee did outside of work.
In fact, even if the employee works for the organization as a regular employee, if writing code is not within the normal scope of employment it still might not be a work for hire (up to the courts to decide if things go south).
While some works for hire can be done by an independent contractors along with a specific written agreement, software code generally does not fall into any of the specifically enumerated categories where these written agreements work (see 17 U.S.C.
101 for more details).
Interesting: Technically, code written for a big company like MS or IBM by the armies of independent contractors are NOT works made for hire.
See point 2 for how the companies can still get rights.
2. Assignment of Copyright:  This is much more common for any work not directly made by an employee.
There is a written agreement assigning ownership of the copyright to the contracting organization.
The usual rules of contract law cover what is and is not within the scope of the assignment.
Assignments can be non-exclusive (we can do what we want with the code, but the developer is also free to do what he wants), or more commonly, exclusive (the assignee getting rights to the code has full control, the original developer loses his rights to that specific work).
So is there any difference from a work made for hire?
YES!  In a work made for hire, the organization OWNS the copyright for the entire length of the copyright term.
However, in an assignment, Copyright law specifically splits the copyright term into two parts.
An assignment made when the work is created transfers rights to the assignee (usually the company) for about 1/2 the term (the time varies depending upon whether the author dies and some other factors, but it is usually a long time &gt; 30 years).
The copyright automatically reverts back to the original author, and the assignment agreement cannot override this rule.
The law is written this way to give the authors a "second bite at the apple" in case a work they assign away for peanuts becomes very valuable later.
The author can extend the copyright to the second half of its term by paying a nominal fee, and can then go out and the assignee loses all previously held rights.
The upshot for the software industry: Any assigned copyrights will eventually revert to the authors.
Now, by the time the reversion occurs most software will be long out of date, but as we all know there is plenty of software out there that lingers for a LONG time, and non-employees DO get there rights to the underlying code back.
One other point:  Binary code gets a separate copyright from the underyling source code.
But binary code is a derivative work of the underyling source code, so even if the developer never compiles code he writes, the binary distribution using that code would violate the copyright of the original code if ther</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381264</id>
	<title>Re:Plate those boilers. . ?</title>
	<author>gnieboer</author>
	<datestamp>1267896720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely!  Not having a contract at all is asking for trouble.  In my first free-lance, I couldn't afford a lawyer, but I still wrote up a basic contract that covered who 'owned' what.  Maybe it could have been chopped down in court in the event of a lawsuit, but the point of the contract was to AVOID lawsuits by ensuring our understanding of the terms of work was at least close to the same.<br>While a number of the possible variations have been discussed, in my opinion here's the basic questions the contract would need to cover...<br>1- Does the customer even receive any source code as a deliverable?<br>2- If so, does the customer receive source code to all libraries coded by the programmer, or just those libraries with custom code made solely for that customer (IE as mentioned, many of us have built a common DLL framework that we re-use in other projects, do they get that code?)<br>3- Does the customer have complete and total rights to the source code?<br>4- If so, does the original programmer retain any rights to the source code? (IE do you have to delete any code you made from your own systems after delivery)<br>5- Can the customer resell the binaries?<br>6- Can the customer resell the source code?<br>7- Can the programmer resell the source code/binaries?  If so, to whom (IE not to competitors)<br>8- Does the customer's license ever expire?</p><p>In my case, I granted an non-exclusive non-expiring license to the "code", which included all binaries, and source code for custom code developed just for them (but not my utility libraries).  They could not resell at all, and I couldn't resell to competitors.  We were both happy and it was clear up front with no need for delays, just a 15 minute conversation with their tech lead, the CEO, and assistant CEO.   With a larger company, I'm sure they would have wanted a legal review, but in that case I would have ensure we agreed on principle before starting requirements development, and go ahead and let the lawyers re-phrase the language to be more rock-solid as long as the general principles didn't change.  I suppose it really depends on the level of trust you've got in that company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely !
Not having a contract at all is asking for trouble .
In my first free-lance , I could n't afford a lawyer , but I still wrote up a basic contract that covered who 'owned ' what .
Maybe it could have been chopped down in court in the event of a lawsuit , but the point of the contract was to AVOID lawsuits by ensuring our understanding of the terms of work was at least close to the same.While a number of the possible variations have been discussed , in my opinion here 's the basic questions the contract would need to cover...1- Does the customer even receive any source code as a deliverable ? 2- If so , does the customer receive source code to all libraries coded by the programmer , or just those libraries with custom code made solely for that customer ( IE as mentioned , many of us have built a common DLL framework that we re-use in other projects , do they get that code ?
) 3- Does the customer have complete and total rights to the source code ? 4- If so , does the original programmer retain any rights to the source code ?
( IE do you have to delete any code you made from your own systems after delivery ) 5- Can the customer resell the binaries ? 6- Can the customer resell the source code ? 7- Can the programmer resell the source code/binaries ?
If so , to whom ( IE not to competitors ) 8- Does the customer 's license ever expire ? In my case , I granted an non-exclusive non-expiring license to the " code " , which included all binaries , and source code for custom code developed just for them ( but not my utility libraries ) .
They could not resell at all , and I could n't resell to competitors .
We were both happy and it was clear up front with no need for delays , just a 15 minute conversation with their tech lead , the CEO , and assistant CEO .
With a larger company , I 'm sure they would have wanted a legal review , but in that case I would have ensure we agreed on principle before starting requirements development , and go ahead and let the lawyers re-phrase the language to be more rock-solid as long as the general principles did n't change .
I suppose it really depends on the level of trust you 've got in that company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely!
Not having a contract at all is asking for trouble.
In my first free-lance, I couldn't afford a lawyer, but I still wrote up a basic contract that covered who 'owned' what.
Maybe it could have been chopped down in court in the event of a lawsuit, but the point of the contract was to AVOID lawsuits by ensuring our understanding of the terms of work was at least close to the same.While a number of the possible variations have been discussed, in my opinion here's the basic questions the contract would need to cover...1- Does the customer even receive any source code as a deliverable?2- If so, does the customer receive source code to all libraries coded by the programmer, or just those libraries with custom code made solely for that customer (IE as mentioned, many of us have built a common DLL framework that we re-use in other projects, do they get that code?
)3- Does the customer have complete and total rights to the source code?4- If so, does the original programmer retain any rights to the source code?
(IE do you have to delete any code you made from your own systems after delivery)5- Can the customer resell the binaries?6- Can the customer resell the source code?7- Can the programmer resell the source code/binaries?
If so, to whom (IE not to competitors)8- Does the customer's license ever expire?In my case, I granted an non-exclusive non-expiring license to the "code", which included all binaries, and source code for custom code developed just for them (but not my utility libraries).
They could not resell at all, and I couldn't resell to competitors.
We were both happy and it was clear up front with no need for delays, just a 15 minute conversation with their tech lead, the CEO, and assistant CEO.
With a larger company, I'm sure they would have wanted a legal review, but in that case I would have ensure we agreed on principle before starting requirements development, and go ahead and let the lawyers re-phrase the language to be more rock-solid as long as the general principles didn't change.
I suppose it really depends on the level of trust you've got in that company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381826</id>
	<title>You guys are in a service industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267902120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>whether you like it or not, you're in a service industry, and you're only as valuable as your time and materials.  If I had software commissioned, and I have, you don't get paid unless I get full ownership.  You can bitch and moan about it all you want and try to justify it but I don't pay up front, and I don't pay for things I don't own.  No real business person would agree to the terms you guys think you can impose on people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>whether you like it or not , you 're in a service industry , and you 're only as valuable as your time and materials .
If I had software commissioned , and I have , you do n't get paid unless I get full ownership .
You can bitch and moan about it all you want and try to justify it but I do n't pay up front , and I do n't pay for things I do n't own .
No real business person would agree to the terms you guys think you can impose on people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whether you like it or not, you're in a service industry, and you're only as valuable as your time and materials.
If I had software commissioned, and I have, you don't get paid unless I get full ownership.
You can bitch and moan about it all you want and try to justify it but I don't pay up front, and I don't pay for things I don't own.
No real business person would agree to the terms you guys think you can impose on people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381284</id>
	<title>bad plumber example</title>
	<author>Anonymous Cowpat</author>
	<datestamp>1267896960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's more like if I paid someone to go to IKEA, get me a flat-pack wardrobe &amp; put it together. I would still expect them to give me the allen key which came in the box so I can take it apart &amp; put it back together myself.</p><p>He also seems to have confused 'own' with 'right to use'. There's no reason why he can't give his source to his client and still retain the right to use it again himself.</p><p>Starting development without a contract sounds like a thoroughly foolish idea, as the terms will be essentially decided by a judge if there's ever a dispute. What the client reasonably expected (a copy of all the source and right to modify it) will be taken into account.</p><p>Finally, demanding a large up-front payment is not protecting himself from litigation. You take lots of money up-front and then don't provide the client with what they were expecting (with no contract) you'll end up with no money and lumbered with costs when they sue.</p><p>Now I remember why I stopped getting PCPro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more like if I paid someone to go to IKEA , get me a flat-pack wardrobe &amp; put it together .
I would still expect them to give me the allen key which came in the box so I can take it apart &amp; put it back together myself.He also seems to have confused 'own ' with 'right to use' .
There 's no reason why he ca n't give his source to his client and still retain the right to use it again himself.Starting development without a contract sounds like a thoroughly foolish idea , as the terms will be essentially decided by a judge if there 's ever a dispute .
What the client reasonably expected ( a copy of all the source and right to modify it ) will be taken into account.Finally , demanding a large up-front payment is not protecting himself from litigation .
You take lots of money up-front and then do n't provide the client with what they were expecting ( with no contract ) you 'll end up with no money and lumbered with costs when they sue.Now I remember why I stopped getting PCPro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more like if I paid someone to go to IKEA, get me a flat-pack wardrobe &amp; put it together.
I would still expect them to give me the allen key which came in the box so I can take it apart &amp; put it back together myself.He also seems to have confused 'own' with 'right to use'.
There's no reason why he can't give his source to his client and still retain the right to use it again himself.Starting development without a contract sounds like a thoroughly foolish idea, as the terms will be essentially decided by a judge if there's ever a dispute.
What the client reasonably expected (a copy of all the source and right to modify it) will be taken into account.Finally, demanding a large up-front payment is not protecting himself from litigation.
You take lots of money up-front and then don't provide the client with what they were expecting (with no contract) you'll end up with no money and lumbered with costs when they sue.Now I remember why I stopped getting PCPro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381974</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267903560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should really read the circular.</p><p>1) they mean employee under the general common law of agency.  Every one of the contractors I've hired fits this description even though they were not my "employees."</p><p>2) Even if you are not and employee under the general common law of agency you can create a written agreement between parties, read contract, specifying that the work is a work made for hire if it satisfies one of the 9 categories listed in part two.  Programing certainly would if the code you are working on is not yours.</p><p>3) the transfer of rights is not particularly relevant since in a work for hire they were never yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should really read the circular.1 ) they mean employee under the general common law of agency .
Every one of the contractors I 've hired fits this description even though they were not my " employees .
" 2 ) Even if you are not and employee under the general common law of agency you can create a written agreement between parties , read contract , specifying that the work is a work made for hire if it satisfies one of the 9 categories listed in part two .
Programing certainly would if the code you are working on is not yours.3 ) the transfer of rights is not particularly relevant since in a work for hire they were never yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should really read the circular.1) they mean employee under the general common law of agency.
Every one of the contractors I've hired fits this description even though they were not my "employees.
"2) Even if you are not and employee under the general common law of agency you can create a written agreement between parties, read contract, specifying that the work is a work made for hire if it satisfies one of the 9 categories listed in part two.
Programing certainly would if the code you are working on is not yours.3) the transfer of rights is not particularly relevant since in a work for hire they were never yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380994</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>sosume</author>
	<datestamp>1267893660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; As a programmer I own all the of the code I write until I sign away that right</p><p>That is like an accountant claiming ownership to the ledger. He wrote all the lines after all, didn't he? Or a builder claiming ownership of the form of your house. Even worse, what about McDonalds claiming ownershipo of your body?? They choose which ingredients to provide you with, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; As a programmer I own all the of the code I write until I sign away that rightThat is like an accountant claiming ownership to the ledger .
He wrote all the lines after all , did n't he ?
Or a builder claiming ownership of the form of your house .
Even worse , what about McDonalds claiming ownershipo of your body ? ?
They choose which ingredients to provide you with , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; As a programmer I own all the of the code I write until I sign away that rightThat is like an accountant claiming ownership to the ledger.
He wrote all the lines after all, didn't he?
Or a builder claiming ownership of the form of your house.
Even worse, what about McDonalds claiming ownershipo of your body??
They choose which ingredients to provide you with, after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381790</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>suomynonAyletamitlU</author>
	<datestamp>1267901640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The builder can always build better, faster, or cheaper than the competition, bringing them constant business for their investment (the time and money they put into building your house).</p><p>If you invest thousands of man-hours into software, and some other shit steals it--the work itself, not the product--and calibrates his cost based on not having had to pay for thouse thousands of man-hours, you will be undercut, if you even have a business left at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The builder can always build better , faster , or cheaper than the competition , bringing them constant business for their investment ( the time and money they put into building your house ) .If you invest thousands of man-hours into software , and some other shit steals it--the work itself , not the product--and calibrates his cost based on not having had to pay for thouse thousands of man-hours , you will be undercut , if you even have a business left at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The builder can always build better, faster, or cheaper than the competition, bringing them constant business for their investment (the time and money they put into building your house).If you invest thousands of man-hours into software, and some other shit steals it--the work itself, not the product--and calibrates his cost based on not having had to pay for thouse thousands of man-hours, you will be undercut, if you even have a business left at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382272</id>
	<title>OSS</title>
	<author>akabigbro</author>
	<datestamp>1267905660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why OSS is better. Everyone owns the code. This whole ownership of something intangible is absolute stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why OSS is better .
Everyone owns the code .
This whole ownership of something intangible is absolute stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why OSS is better.
Everyone owns the code.
This whole ownership of something intangible is absolute stupidity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380910</id>
	<title>hrm, so how does ANY coding work ever get done?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267892940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I have prior knowledge of X highly efficient algorithms to do various things that I have come up with in the past, If I happen to have need of them then I instinctively will use that method, to fluff it up with placebo code to make it unique in some way would be wrong, and any half decent coder coming after me would remove placebo code spotting it's uselessness anyway so my original algorithm would be left.</p><p>Everyone knows 'new' code is highly rare as it is unless working with a very specific problem.</p><p>So how the heck do you explain to ANY company you work for that due to this you can work for them, and give them a product they own they have entirely paid for, but tons of the methods within it you can simply never give them any rights to, as you've used them countless times before for yourself and other paying and non paying clients. And it would be impossible for you to continue to work in the field if you were to not use them elsewhere also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I have prior knowledge of X highly efficient algorithms to do various things that I have come up with in the past , If I happen to have need of them then I instinctively will use that method , to fluff it up with placebo code to make it unique in some way would be wrong , and any half decent coder coming after me would remove placebo code spotting it 's uselessness anyway so my original algorithm would be left.Everyone knows 'new ' code is highly rare as it is unless working with a very specific problem.So how the heck do you explain to ANY company you work for that due to this you can work for them , and give them a product they own they have entirely paid for , but tons of the methods within it you can simply never give them any rights to , as you 've used them countless times before for yourself and other paying and non paying clients .
And it would be impossible for you to continue to work in the field if you were to not use them elsewhere also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I have prior knowledge of X highly efficient algorithms to do various things that I have come up with in the past, If I happen to have need of them then I instinctively will use that method, to fluff it up with placebo code to make it unique in some way would be wrong, and any half decent coder coming after me would remove placebo code spotting it's uselessness anyway so my original algorithm would be left.Everyone knows 'new' code is highly rare as it is unless working with a very specific problem.So how the heck do you explain to ANY company you work for that due to this you can work for them, and give them a product they own they have entirely paid for, but tons of the methods within it you can simply never give them any rights to, as you've used them countless times before for yourself and other paying and non paying clients.
And it would be impossible for you to continue to work in the field if you were to not use them elsewhere also.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381836</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1267902240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>by 15Bit (940730) writes:</p></div><p>My condolences on the loss of your most significant bit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:{</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>by 15Bit ( 940730 ) writes : My condolences on the loss of your most significant bit : {</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by 15Bit (940730) writes:My condolences on the loss of your most significant bit :{
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380938</id>
	<title>silly</title>
	<author>Zecheus</author>
	<datestamp>1267893240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A business owner owns the domain knowledge: the business domain, e.g. process model, business concepts.  Its unlikely the ownership would give these to a software contractor.
<p>
Also, a software contractor merely plays a part in the social process.  Claiming ownership of any component of that process, I'd say, is antisocial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A business owner owns the domain knowledge : the business domain , e.g .
process model , business concepts .
Its unlikely the ownership would give these to a software contractor .
Also , a software contractor merely plays a part in the social process .
Claiming ownership of any component of that process , I 'd say , is antisocial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A business owner owns the domain knowledge: the business domain, e.g.
process model, business concepts.
Its unlikely the ownership would give these to a software contractor.
Also, a software contractor merely plays a part in the social process.
Claiming ownership of any component of that process, I'd say, is antisocial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31386576</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>NormalVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1267897680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Or a builder claiming ownership of the form of your house.</i> <br> <br>

<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf" title="copyright.gov">This link</a> [copyright.gov] goes to a PDF describing the concept of architectural copyrights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or a builder claiming ownership of the form of your house .
This link [ copyright.gov ] goes to a PDF describing the concept of architectural copyrights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or a builder claiming ownership of the form of your house.
This link [copyright.gov] goes to a PDF describing the concept of architectural copyrights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382760</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1267908540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When copyrights are involved, unless there is a specific agreement that copyrights are transferred, no transfer took place.  Let's take the recent case of SCO vs Novell.  SCO says they got the Unix copyrights with Amendment 2.  Novell says that SCO only got rights to sell Unix licenses.  The judge found that in a summary judgment that since no specific part of the Amendment explicitly assigned SCO the copyrights, it is hard to argue that they received them.  The judge was overturned on appeal because the appeals court said that procedurely such a ruling cannot come from a summary judgment; there must be a trial even if the evidence was overwhelming that SCO would lose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When copyrights are involved , unless there is a specific agreement that copyrights are transferred , no transfer took place .
Let 's take the recent case of SCO vs Novell .
SCO says they got the Unix copyrights with Amendment 2 .
Novell says that SCO only got rights to sell Unix licenses .
The judge found that in a summary judgment that since no specific part of the Amendment explicitly assigned SCO the copyrights , it is hard to argue that they received them .
The judge was overturned on appeal because the appeals court said that procedurely such a ruling can not come from a summary judgment ; there must be a trial even if the evidence was overwhelming that SCO would lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When copyrights are involved, unless there is a specific agreement that copyrights are transferred, no transfer took place.
Let's take the recent case of SCO vs Novell.
SCO says they got the Unix copyrights with Amendment 2.
Novell says that SCO only got rights to sell Unix licenses.
The judge found that in a summary judgment that since no specific part of the Amendment explicitly assigned SCO the copyrights, it is hard to argue that they received them.
The judge was overturned on appeal because the appeals court said that procedurely such a ruling cannot come from a summary judgment; there must be a trial even if the evidence was overwhelming that SCO would lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384304</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>Dhalka226</author>
	<datestamp>1267876680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's true, but in absence of a specific contract you haven't solved the riddle of what DID you pay for?  If you believe you paid for those floor plans and he believes you paid for the work and a copy (though I fail to see why he would care), then you have a problem and you need to start looking into what the law says, or to come to an agreement amongst yourselves which probably still involves looking into what the law says.

</p><p>From a software perspective, it seems from the majority of comments here that the default is the developer owns the code if they're not creating code under terms of employment (not contract).  It also seems like the person who writes the article is a complete ass, though, using that fact and other peoples' ignorance to exploit the fact that he deliberately does not create a contract.  In his words: "You might ask why I didn't make a contract with this client in the first place. It's because I've found, over the years, that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved."

</p><p>Clarify everybody's expectations, put it in writing, and everybody wins.  It's really not that hard.  And if there is going to be a conflict, potentially a conflict that ends the project, better to get that in advance than after all the work has been done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true , but in absence of a specific contract you have n't solved the riddle of what DID you pay for ?
If you believe you paid for those floor plans and he believes you paid for the work and a copy ( though I fail to see why he would care ) , then you have a problem and you need to start looking into what the law says , or to come to an agreement amongst yourselves which probably still involves looking into what the law says .
From a software perspective , it seems from the majority of comments here that the default is the developer owns the code if they 're not creating code under terms of employment ( not contract ) .
It also seems like the person who writes the article is a complete ass , though , using that fact and other peoples ' ignorance to exploit the fact that he deliberately does not create a contract .
In his words : " You might ask why I did n't make a contract with this client in the first place .
It 's because I 've found , over the years , that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved .
" Clarify everybody 's expectations , put it in writing , and everybody wins .
It 's really not that hard .
And if there is going to be a conflict , potentially a conflict that ends the project , better to get that in advance than after all the work has been done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true, but in absence of a specific contract you haven't solved the riddle of what DID you pay for?
If you believe you paid for those floor plans and he believes you paid for the work and a copy (though I fail to see why he would care), then you have a problem and you need to start looking into what the law says, or to come to an agreement amongst yourselves which probably still involves looking into what the law says.
From a software perspective, it seems from the majority of comments here that the default is the developer owns the code if they're not creating code under terms of employment (not contract).
It also seems like the person who writes the article is a complete ass, though, using that fact and other peoples' ignorance to exploit the fact that he deliberately does not create a contract.
In his words: "You might ask why I didn't make a contract with this client in the first place.
It's because I've found, over the years, that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved.
"

Clarify everybody's expectations, put it in writing, and everybody wins.
It's really not that hard.
And if there is going to be a conflict, potentially a conflict that ends the project, better to get that in advance than after all the work has been done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380842</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1267892280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work. When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints.</p></div><p>Part of it is of course that they expect the same total pay, don't expect to cut them off from the additional income and expect the base pay to remain the same. But I think the other part is that they start thinking of what a similar commercial work for hire would cost. The type where you get model releases and can use them in commercial promotions, magazines, websites and so on both in original and any form of derivate and sublicense those rights to others, which is quite pricy. Maybe they're thinking you want to set up a bridal gear shop and is looking to get a professional set of stock photos on the cheap by being your own models? Or have a deal with someone that wants to? If you ask for all the rights they will imagine the possibilities, even if you haven't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone pays you to perform work , they own all rights to that work .
When I was married , we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed , and simply did n't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work , and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints.Part of it is of course that they expect the same total pay , do n't expect to cut them off from the additional income and expect the base pay to remain the same .
But I think the other part is that they start thinking of what a similar commercial work for hire would cost .
The type where you get model releases and can use them in commercial promotions , magazines , websites and so on both in original and any form of derivate and sublicense those rights to others , which is quite pricy .
Maybe they 're thinking you want to set up a bridal gear shop and is looking to get a professional set of stock photos on the cheap by being your own models ?
Or have a deal with someone that wants to ?
If you ask for all the rights they will imagine the possibilities , even if you have n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work.
When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints.Part of it is of course that they expect the same total pay, don't expect to cut them off from the additional income and expect the base pay to remain the same.
But I think the other part is that they start thinking of what a similar commercial work for hire would cost.
The type where you get model releases and can use them in commercial promotions, magazines, websites and so on both in original and any form of derivate and sublicense those rights to others, which is quite pricy.
Maybe they're thinking you want to set up a bridal gear shop and is looking to get a professional set of stock photos on the cheap by being your own models?
Or have a deal with someone that wants to?
If you ask for all the rights they will imagine the possibilities, even if you haven't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380764</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>FrozenGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1267891200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What this really comes down to is the business model - how you intend to make a profit from your work.  If a programmer's business model dictates that he owns the underlying code (and can use bits and pieces to accelerate development of future projects), he will price his work accordingly.  If his business model dictates that the customer owns everything, we will price his work based on that model.  <br> <br>Problems tend to arise when customers expect the benefits of the programmer-owns-the-code model (shorter development times, lower costs) as well as the benefits of the customer-owns-the-code model (we own the code, we can hire someone else [cheaper] to do maintenance and upgrades).  <br> <br>In many cases, the root cause is ignorance on the customer's part.  If the customer will let you educate them, do so.  If they won't let you educate them, when possible, let them be someone else's problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What this really comes down to is the business model - how you intend to make a profit from your work .
If a programmer 's business model dictates that he owns the underlying code ( and can use bits and pieces to accelerate development of future projects ) , he will price his work accordingly .
If his business model dictates that the customer owns everything , we will price his work based on that model .
Problems tend to arise when customers expect the benefits of the programmer-owns-the-code model ( shorter development times , lower costs ) as well as the benefits of the customer-owns-the-code model ( we own the code , we can hire someone else [ cheaper ] to do maintenance and upgrades ) .
In many cases , the root cause is ignorance on the customer 's part .
If the customer will let you educate them , do so .
If they wo n't let you educate them , when possible , let them be someone else 's problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this really comes down to is the business model - how you intend to make a profit from your work.
If a programmer's business model dictates that he owns the underlying code (and can use bits and pieces to accelerate development of future projects), he will price his work accordingly.
If his business model dictates that the customer owns everything, we will price his work based on that model.
Problems tend to arise when customers expect the benefits of the programmer-owns-the-code model (shorter development times, lower costs) as well as the benefits of the customer-owns-the-code model (we own the code, we can hire someone else [cheaper] to do maintenance and upgrades).
In many cases, the root cause is ignorance on the customer's part.
If the customer will let you educate them, do so.
If they won't let you educate them, when possible, let them be someone else's problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31386330</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>thesupraman</author>
	<datestamp>1267894860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Close..</p><p>If you are *employed* to do work what you say is generally correct, and I had exactly the same situation with a photograher, however that is because they are not employed, but contracted to provide a service, so the contract can be whatever they wish - and they often wish to try and hammer you to the wall<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).</p><p>Interestingly, in television production of an event the cameramen dont try this little trick, funny that.</p><p>It all comes down to the nature of the agreement for the creator, and employment is a pretty solid hammer there (the employer gets the copyright, in general), however sale of items/services is VERY different, and that is what is being considered here, so it is down to the contracts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Close..If you are * employed * to do work what you say is generally correct , and I had exactly the same situation with a photograher , however that is because they are not employed , but contracted to provide a service , so the contract can be whatever they wish - and they often wish to try and hammer you to the wall ; ) .Interestingly , in television production of an event the cameramen dont try this little trick , funny that.It all comes down to the nature of the agreement for the creator , and employment is a pretty solid hammer there ( the employer gets the copyright , in general ) , however sale of items/services is VERY different , and that is what is being considered here , so it is down to the contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close..If you are *employed* to do work what you say is generally correct, and I had exactly the same situation with a photograher, however that is because they are not employed, but contracted to provide a service, so the contract can be whatever they wish - and they often wish to try and hammer you to the wall ;).Interestingly, in television production of an event the cameramen dont try this little trick, funny that.It all comes down to the nature of the agreement for the creator, and employment is a pretty solid hammer there (the employer gets the copyright, in general), however sale of items/services is VERY different, and that is what is being considered here, so it is down to the contracts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382002</id>
	<title>The guy creates his own problems</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1267903860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author of TFA says it best:</p><blockquote><div><p>It&rsquo;s because I&rsquo;ve found, over the years, that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved</p></div></blockquote><p>So he isn't clear and up front with his clients and then his business dealings get confused... um.... duh?</p><p>I create a Statement of Work for every client that clearly spells out what I'm doing, what they get, how it should work, what they're paying for, and sometimes what they are NOT paying for.  I've lost a negligible percentage of projects because I wrote up a SOW and the client didn't go through with it; and to the ones I did lose I say "good riddance".  Any client who can't sign a piece of paper to protect both parties is normally the kind of client that knows how to take advantage of a contractor more easily without an agreement in place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author of TFA says it best : It    s because I    ve found , over the years , that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelvedSo he is n't clear and up front with his clients and then his business dealings get confused... um.... duh ? I create a Statement of Work for every client that clearly spells out what I 'm doing , what they get , how it should work , what they 're paying for , and sometimes what they are NOT paying for .
I 've lost a negligible percentage of projects because I wrote up a SOW and the client did n't go through with it ; and to the ones I did lose I say " good riddance " .
Any client who ca n't sign a piece of paper to protect both parties is normally the kind of client that knows how to take advantage of a contractor more easily without an agreement in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author of TFA says it best:It’s because I’ve found, over the years, that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelvedSo he isn't clear and up front with his clients and then his business dealings get confused... um.... duh?I create a Statement of Work for every client that clearly spells out what I'm doing, what they get, how it should work, what they're paying for, and sometimes what they are NOT paying for.
I've lost a negligible percentage of projects because I wrote up a SOW and the client didn't go through with it; and to the ones I did lose I say "good riddance".
Any client who can't sign a piece of paper to protect both parties is normally the kind of client that knows how to take advantage of a contractor more easily without an agreement in place.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381606</id>
	<title>Re:Slippery slopes...</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1267899840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) that would infringe patents, 2) that would infringe registered trademarks and patents, and 3) I'd probably go to jail for trying to sell "pecker wreckers."</p></div><p>Yes, Yes, No.  You cannot go to jail for even the most grievous of IP violations.  They can sue you and obtain a judgement that makes you wish you were in jail, but they can't get you there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) that would infringe patents , 2 ) that would infringe registered trademarks and patents , and 3 ) I 'd probably go to jail for trying to sell " pecker wreckers .
" Yes , Yes , No .
You can not go to jail for even the most grievous of IP violations .
They can sue you and obtain a judgement that makes you wish you were in jail , but they ca n't get you there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) that would infringe patents, 2) that would infringe registered trademarks and patents, and 3) I'd probably go to jail for trying to sell "pecker wreckers.
"Yes, Yes, No.
You cannot go to jail for even the most grievous of IP violations.
They can sue you and obtain a judgement that makes you wish you were in jail, but they can't get you there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380774</id>
	<title>Re:same deal with photography</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1267891320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there are different levels to your product</p><p>1 you buy the time and the prints ( X 4/6 y 8/10 ect)<br>2 you also buy  "retouching"<br>3 you also buy the negatives<br>4 you also buy the certification that that was the only copy of said negative</p><p>each level gets more expensive (if offered at all)</p><p>same deal with software</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there are different levels to your product1 you buy the time and the prints ( X 4/6 y 8/10 ect ) 2 you also buy " retouching " 3 you also buy the negatives4 you also buy the certification that that was the only copy of said negativeeach level gets more expensive ( if offered at all ) same deal with software</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are different levels to your product1 you buy the time and the prints ( X 4/6 y 8/10 ect)2 you also buy  "retouching"3 you also buy the negatives4 you also buy the certification that that was the only copy of said negativeeach level gets more expensive (if offered at all)same deal with software</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382872</id>
	<title>Re:Work For Hire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267866060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's pretty simple. If you are an employee, your employer owns your code. If you are a contractor you own your code unless your contract or agreement states that the work is a "work for hire" (or uses equivalent language). Requisite Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] reference.</p></div></blockquote><p>It is even simpler than that because "Work for hire" is boilerplate for almost all IT-related contracts. It is rare to hear of a normal 8-5 employment that is not as a "work for hire" "independent contractor", and I am in California where this kind of thing is explicitly illegal. Which companies are breaking the law? ALL OF THEM. If you don't like it, enjoy not having a job! It was hard to be picky before the economy went bust. So in summary, your employer owns your code and you can get whatever they agree to let you have or fail to sue you for taking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty simple .
If you are an employee , your employer owns your code .
If you are a contractor you own your code unless your contract or agreement states that the work is a " work for hire " ( or uses equivalent language ) .
Requisite Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] reference.It is even simpler than that because " Work for hire " is boilerplate for almost all IT-related contracts .
It is rare to hear of a normal 8-5 employment that is not as a " work for hire " " independent contractor " , and I am in California where this kind of thing is explicitly illegal .
Which companies are breaking the law ?
ALL OF THEM .
If you do n't like it , enjoy not having a job !
It was hard to be picky before the economy went bust .
So in summary , your employer owns your code and you can get whatever they agree to let you have or fail to sue you for taking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty simple.
If you are an employee, your employer owns your code.
If you are a contractor you own your code unless your contract or agreement states that the work is a "work for hire" (or uses equivalent language).
Requisite Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] reference.It is even simpler than that because "Work for hire" is boilerplate for almost all IT-related contracts.
It is rare to hear of a normal 8-5 employment that is not as a "work for hire" "independent contractor", and I am in California where this kind of thing is explicitly illegal.
Which companies are breaking the law?
ALL OF THEM.
If you don't like it, enjoy not having a job!
It was hard to be picky before the economy went bust.
So in summary, your employer owns your code and you can get whatever they agree to let you have or fail to sue you for taking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380850</id>
	<title>Interesting when hiring contract artists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267892400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many successful contract computer graphics artists 'have' libraries and scripts that they have developed over the years.  These are often created or written as 'work for hire' for their previous employers.</p><p>When I hire them (as does everybody in the business) they are required to sign an employment agreement that says that anything created on the job is a work for hire.  They're working at our facility, under our supervision, with our equipment and toolset -- it could not be more clear what the arrangement is.</p><p>Especially among younger artists, though, these rules do not seem clear.  They think that the tools they write benefit the company, but that they should be able to take them to their next gig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many successful contract computer graphics artists 'have ' libraries and scripts that they have developed over the years .
These are often created or written as 'work for hire ' for their previous employers.When I hire them ( as does everybody in the business ) they are required to sign an employment agreement that says that anything created on the job is a work for hire .
They 're working at our facility , under our supervision , with our equipment and toolset -- it could not be more clear what the arrangement is.Especially among younger artists , though , these rules do not seem clear .
They think that the tools they write benefit the company , but that they should be able to take them to their next gig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many successful contract computer graphics artists 'have' libraries and scripts that they have developed over the years.
These are often created or written as 'work for hire' for their previous employers.When I hire them (as does everybody in the business) they are required to sign an employment agreement that says that anything created on the job is a work for hire.
They're working at our facility, under our supervision, with our equipment and toolset -- it could not be more clear what the arrangement is.Especially among younger artists, though, these rules do not seem clear.
They think that the tools they write benefit the company, but that they should be able to take them to their next gig.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380682</id>
	<title>Reality (Legal is different)</title>
	<author>trust\_jmh</author>
	<datestamp>1267890540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>work itself</p></div><p>Has a cost once. (Extra work adding extra cost.)<br>
The work that has already been done has no extra cost. It is only greed wanting to gain without giving.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>leave his toolbox</p></div><p>Plumber looses what he has but with IP a copy isn't a loss.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The client has paid only for the results of the labour</p></div><p>Source code is a result of labour.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>ownership of the code has a value</p></div><p>Greed has value.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>pre-existing libraries</p></div><p>Cost has already been paid for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>work itselfHas a cost once .
( Extra work adding extra cost .
) The work that has already been done has no extra cost .
It is only greed wanting to gain without giving.leave his toolboxPlumber looses what he has but with IP a copy is n't a loss.The client has paid only for the results of the labourSource code is a result of labour.ownership of the code has a valueGreed has value.pre-existing librariesCost has already been paid for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>work itselfHas a cost once.
(Extra work adding extra cost.
)
The work that has already been done has no extra cost.
It is only greed wanting to gain without giving.leave his toolboxPlumber looses what he has but with IP a copy isn't a loss.The client has paid only for the results of the labourSource code is a result of labour.ownership of the code has a valueGreed has value.pre-existing librariesCost has already been paid for.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384174</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267875360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's difficult to find a photographer that agrees, because its a false legal assumption.</i></p><p>His first statement might have been false, but it's not a false legal assumption to pay someone with the understanding that you have rights to the photos in return.</p><p>Also note that it isn't even necessary that the copyright be transferred (even thought that's how the rest of the world works - I don't see why photographers are so special) - it would be good enough that a married couple can have a licence to the photos they paid for. You know, so they aren't breaking the law when they decide to make a copy of <i>their own wedding photos</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's difficult to find a photographer that agrees , because its a false legal assumption.His first statement might have been false , but it 's not a false legal assumption to pay someone with the understanding that you have rights to the photos in return.Also note that it is n't even necessary that the copyright be transferred ( even thought that 's how the rest of the world works - I do n't see why photographers are so special ) - it would be good enough that a married couple can have a licence to the photos they paid for .
You know , so they are n't breaking the law when they decide to make a copy of their own wedding photos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's difficult to find a photographer that agrees, because its a false legal assumption.His first statement might have been false, but it's not a false legal assumption to pay someone with the understanding that you have rights to the photos in return.Also note that it isn't even necessary that the copyright be transferred (even thought that's how the rest of the world works - I don't see why photographers are so special) - it would be good enough that a married couple can have a licence to the photos they paid for.
You know, so they aren't breaking the law when they decide to make a copy of their own wedding photos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384448</id>
	<title>Oddly toned post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267877880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Normally<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is all "I paid for [media file] so I own it and can do what I want with it" in opposition to the copyright holders who are like "No, you just licensed it, we own it and can take it back or prevent you from copying it if we want".
<p>
Here, are we to feel that the people who paid for the code don't own it and can't do what they want with it? Are developers acting the part of the MPAA now?
</p><p>
Lots of the responses are like "you own what you contractually purchased, according to said contract", which is cool 'cause that's what I think should be the case.
</p><p>
But the tone of the original post is Weird.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally / .
is all " I paid for [ media file ] so I own it and can do what I want with it " in opposition to the copyright holders who are like " No , you just licensed it , we own it and can take it back or prevent you from copying it if we want " .
Here , are we to feel that the people who paid for the code do n't own it and ca n't do what they want with it ?
Are developers acting the part of the MPAA now ?
Lots of the responses are like " you own what you contractually purchased , according to said contract " , which is cool 'cause that 's what I think should be the case .
But the tone of the original post is Weird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally /.
is all "I paid for [media file] so I own it and can do what I want with it" in opposition to the copyright holders who are like "No, you just licensed it, we own it and can take it back or prevent you from copying it if we want".
Here, are we to feel that the people who paid for the code don't own it and can't do what they want with it?
Are developers acting the part of the MPAA now?
Lots of the responses are like "you own what you contractually purchased, according to said contract", which is cool 'cause that's what I think should be the case.
But the tone of the original post is Weird.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383080</id>
	<title>REALITY</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1267867380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there is nothing in writing the one with the most lawyers wins.</p><p>And if you have enough lawyers it doesn't even matter if it is in writing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is nothing in writing the one with the most lawyers wins.And if you have enough lawyers it does n't even matter if it is in writing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is nothing in writing the one with the most lawyers wins.And if you have enough lawyers it doesn't even matter if it is in writing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381522</id>
	<title>Who owns the money I pay for the software</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1267899060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this guy thinks he owns software I buy from him, then I reckon I should retain ownership of the money I pay for it.
<p>
As the article says</p><p><div class="quote"><p>or a contract exists that transfers full ownership</p></div><p> which almost every contract will stipulate. I'd suggest this guy stops being so precious and realises he's not creating works of art (even these are owned by the client if they were commissioned - well, the copyright is anyway) he's making widgets: be they mechanical, electrical or virtual. The same set of laws and common sense applies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this guy thinks he owns software I buy from him , then I reckon I should retain ownership of the money I pay for it .
As the article saysor a contract exists that transfers full ownership which almost every contract will stipulate .
I 'd suggest this guy stops being so precious and realises he 's not creating works of art ( even these are owned by the client if they were commissioned - well , the copyright is anyway ) he 's making widgets : be they mechanical , electrical or virtual .
The same set of laws and common sense applies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this guy thinks he owns software I buy from him, then I reckon I should retain ownership of the money I pay for it.
As the article saysor a contract exists that transfers full ownership which almost every contract will stipulate.
I'd suggest this guy stops being so precious and realises he's not creating works of art (even these are owned by the client if they were commissioned - well, the copyright is anyway) he's making widgets: be they mechanical, electrical or virtual.
The same set of laws and common sense applies.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383126</id>
	<title>code is never owned</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1267867620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Code is information and like all other creative works that information is not and can never be owned by anyone it is the property of mankind.</p><p>It is the commercial rights to a work that can be owned not the work itself. Ther are only 3 kinds of IP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...copyrights, patents and trademarks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Code is information and like all other creative works that information is not and can never be owned by anyone it is the property of mankind.It is the commercial rights to a work that can be owned not the work itself .
Ther are only 3 kinds of IP ...copyrights , patents and trademarks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Code is information and like all other creative works that information is not and can never be owned by anyone it is the property of mankind.It is the commercial rights to a work that can be owned not the work itself.
Ther are only 3 kinds of IP ...copyrights, patents and trademarks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383376</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>muridae</author>
	<datestamp>1267869480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do not understand 'work for hire', so please, stop. The reason you have difficulty finding a photographer is because you do not understand this distinction. 'Work for hire' only counts in:
</p><ol>
<li>Contribution to a larger work, such as a magazine</li><li>A part of a motion picture or audiovisual work</li><li>A compilation of existing works</li><li>Instructional texts or graphic works</li><li>A translation of an existing work</li><li>A test</li><li>Answers for a test</li>
<li>Supplementary works, such as a graph for a book</li><li>An atlas</li></ol><p> The work also has to be specified as work for hire, and must be specially commissioned. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work\_for\_hire" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work\_for\_hire</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>You paying them to work for you does not count, unless you are employing them full time or have specified in the contract that it is a 'work for hire'. As a amateur photographer, I have enough respect for my own portfolio to only hand over the copyright in the case that you pay for all the advertising that the photographs would have gotten me had I been able to display them in my portfolio. Don't like that, then don't hire those photographers. But do not confuse the law and think that it is in your favor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do not understand 'work for hire ' , so please , stop .
The reason you have difficulty finding a photographer is because you do not understand this distinction .
'Work for hire ' only counts in : Contribution to a larger work , such as a magazineA part of a motion picture or audiovisual workA compilation of existing worksInstructional texts or graphic worksA translation of an existing workA testAnswers for a test Supplementary works , such as a graph for a bookAn atlas The work also has to be specified as work for hire , and must be specially commissioned .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work \ _for \ _hire [ wikipedia.org ] You paying them to work for you does not count , unless you are employing them full time or have specified in the contract that it is a 'work for hire' .
As a amateur photographer , I have enough respect for my own portfolio to only hand over the copyright in the case that you pay for all the advertising that the photographs would have gotten me had I been able to display them in my portfolio .
Do n't like that , then do n't hire those photographers .
But do not confuse the law and think that it is in your favor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do not understand 'work for hire', so please, stop.
The reason you have difficulty finding a photographer is because you do not understand this distinction.
'Work for hire' only counts in:

Contribution to a larger work, such as a magazineA part of a motion picture or audiovisual workA compilation of existing worksInstructional texts or graphic worksA translation of an existing workA testAnswers for a test
Supplementary works, such as a graph for a bookAn atlas The work also has to be specified as work for hire, and must be specially commissioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work\_for\_hire [wikipedia.org] You paying them to work for you does not count, unless you are employing them full time or have specified in the contract that it is a 'work for hire'.
As a amateur photographer, I have enough respect for my own portfolio to only hand over the copyright in the case that you pay for all the advertising that the photographs would have gotten me had I been able to display them in my portfolio.
Don't like that, then don't hire those photographers.
But do not confuse the law and think that it is in your favor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382320</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267906020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is why independent contractors never produce a "work for hire" unless its in the contract.</p><p>The other reason is because its the kiss of death with the IRS. Once you are a "work for hire" you are an employee for tax purposes, and the company must withhold taxes, pay benefits to you that they pay their other employees.</p><p>The IRS is a far bigger problem than the copyright problem. Copyright can cause some painful negotiation between each party, but at least its just the two of you. The IRS will ruin both your days. The company because they have to pay hefty penalties, and the contractor because they loose all their write-offs.</p><p>The fact that you neglect to mention IRS angle I find it highly unlikely that you actually have any experience on this issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why independent contractors never produce a " work for hire " unless its in the contract.The other reason is because its the kiss of death with the IRS .
Once you are a " work for hire " you are an employee for tax purposes , and the company must withhold taxes , pay benefits to you that they pay their other employees.The IRS is a far bigger problem than the copyright problem .
Copyright can cause some painful negotiation between each party , but at least its just the two of you .
The IRS will ruin both your days .
The company because they have to pay hefty penalties , and the contractor because they loose all their write-offs.The fact that you neglect to mention IRS angle I find it highly unlikely that you actually have any experience on this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why independent contractors never produce a "work for hire" unless its in the contract.The other reason is because its the kiss of death with the IRS.
Once you are a "work for hire" you are an employee for tax purposes, and the company must withhold taxes, pay benefits to you that they pay their other employees.The IRS is a far bigger problem than the copyright problem.
Copyright can cause some painful negotiation between each party, but at least its just the two of you.
The IRS will ruin both your days.
The company because they have to pay hefty penalties, and the contractor because they loose all their write-offs.The fact that you neglect to mention IRS angle I find it highly unlikely that you actually have any experience on this issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381368</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1267897740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not what "double jeopardy" means at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not what " double jeopardy " means at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not what "double jeopardy" means at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380824</id>
	<title>constructing code is proprietary....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267891980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been coding for about 22 years.  In that time, I've worked on proprietary code for customers and employers.  customers usually understand that they are paying for the final product, not the inner workings to give them the final results.  you can use the concept of building a house.  they are paying for the house, not my workers, not my tools, not my materials.  i do not leave a copy of my dev tools for the customers, nor will i leave them a copy of my proprietary code libraries which i employ regularly to make my coding job easier.  if i write a a library which creates a unique object type and use this object in many of my projects, clients are not entitled to this code.  although it helps make their final product work, the concept is the same.  they are not paying for the code, just the finished product.</p><p>if a chef is hired to cook someone a special dish, they are paying for the finished dish, not the recipe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been coding for about 22 years .
In that time , I 've worked on proprietary code for customers and employers .
customers usually understand that they are paying for the final product , not the inner workings to give them the final results .
you can use the concept of building a house .
they are paying for the house , not my workers , not my tools , not my materials .
i do not leave a copy of my dev tools for the customers , nor will i leave them a copy of my proprietary code libraries which i employ regularly to make my coding job easier .
if i write a a library which creates a unique object type and use this object in many of my projects , clients are not entitled to this code .
although it helps make their final product work , the concept is the same .
they are not paying for the code , just the finished product.if a chef is hired to cook someone a special dish , they are paying for the finished dish , not the recipe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been coding for about 22 years.
In that time, I've worked on proprietary code for customers and employers.
customers usually understand that they are paying for the final product, not the inner workings to give them the final results.
you can use the concept of building a house.
they are paying for the house, not my workers, not my tools, not my materials.
i do not leave a copy of my dev tools for the customers, nor will i leave them a copy of my proprietary code libraries which i employ regularly to make my coding job easier.
if i write a a library which creates a unique object type and use this object in many of my projects, clients are not entitled to this code.
although it helps make their final product work, the concept is the same.
they are not paying for the code, just the finished product.if a chef is hired to cook someone a special dish, they are paying for the finished dish, not the recipe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380790</id>
	<title>transfer clarification</title>
	<author>Spazmania</author>
	<datestamp>1267891440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>But, put simply, code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid, unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership (and even then it's far from clear-cut).</em></p><p>Just a point of clarification: You can't write a contract that transfers ownership of a copyright that doesn't (yet) exist. Well, you can but it's unenforceable in the US. You can write a contract to the effect that you *will* transfer ownership of the code you build, but you still own the code until you sign a subsequent document transferring it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , put simply , code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid , unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership ( and even then it 's far from clear-cut ) .Just a point of clarification : You ca n't write a contract that transfers ownership of a copyright that does n't ( yet ) exist .
Well , you can but it 's unenforceable in the US .
You can write a contract to the effect that you * will * transfer ownership of the code you build , but you still own the code until you sign a subsequent document transferring it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, put simply, code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid, unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership (and even then it's far from clear-cut).Just a point of clarification: You can't write a contract that transfers ownership of a copyright that doesn't (yet) exist.
Well, you can but it's unenforceable in the US.
You can write a contract to the effect that you *will* transfer ownership of the code you build, but you still own the code until you sign a subsequent document transferring it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382118</id>
	<title>Re:A (very) brief primer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267904640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is clear you are not a lawyer. You are incorrect on both points.</p><p>To help you understand maybe you should try reading Circular 9, ie works made for hire under the 1976 copyright act.</p><p>Also look up employer employee relationship under agency law.  I you are working in IBM offices under IBMs direction it is a work for hire whether or not you are an independent contractor.  Since this satisfies employment under agency law no special agreement is necessary.  Even if it did not you are probably working on IBMs code this would invoke the first of the 9 categories  of the second statutory definition of work for hire.  IBM could simply put in your contract that it is a work for hire.  This is clearly outlined in copyright law.</p><p>Do you honestly believe that MS and IBM would pay  contractors to write a bunch of code for them and not retain the legal rights to it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is clear you are not a lawyer .
You are incorrect on both points.To help you understand maybe you should try reading Circular 9 , ie works made for hire under the 1976 copyright act.Also look up employer employee relationship under agency law .
I you are working in IBM offices under IBMs direction it is a work for hire whether or not you are an independent contractor .
Since this satisfies employment under agency law no special agreement is necessary .
Even if it did not you are probably working on IBMs code this would invoke the first of the 9 categories of the second statutory definition of work for hire .
IBM could simply put in your contract that it is a work for hire .
This is clearly outlined in copyright law.Do you honestly believe that MS and IBM would pay contractors to write a bunch of code for them and not retain the legal rights to it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is clear you are not a lawyer.
You are incorrect on both points.To help you understand maybe you should try reading Circular 9, ie works made for hire under the 1976 copyright act.Also look up employer employee relationship under agency law.
I you are working in IBM offices under IBMs direction it is a work for hire whether or not you are an independent contractor.
Since this satisfies employment under agency law no special agreement is necessary.
Even if it did not you are probably working on IBMs code this would invoke the first of the 9 categories  of the second statutory definition of work for hire.
IBM could simply put in your contract that it is a work for hire.
This is clearly outlined in copyright law.Do you honestly believe that MS and IBM would pay  contractors to write a bunch of code for them and not retain the legal rights to it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380654</id>
	<title>False dichotomy of Microsoft/Linux</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1267890360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back before Linux was popular, source code licenses were common and understood.  Especially common for software development libraries, you could pay one price for the binaries, or a higher price for both binaries and source, but it no case was it ever understood that the product was not proprietary.<p>Then Linux came along and somehow "closed source" became a synonym for "proprietary", and "open source" a synonym for "free" (gratis).  Microsoft feeds into this by not releasing the source code to Windows.  Windows would be an even stronger (proprietary) product, IMO, if the source code were available.</p><p>Lawrence Lessig tried to rectify this false dichotomy by founding the Creative Commons.  But the public has little knowledge of the existence of the Creative Commons, let alone the particulars of any of the licenses it offers.</p><p>The Linux community shares some of the blame by touting libre, gratis, and "open source" in the same breath.  This lawsuit is a consequence of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back before Linux was popular , source code licenses were common and understood .
Especially common for software development libraries , you could pay one price for the binaries , or a higher price for both binaries and source , but it no case was it ever understood that the product was not proprietary.Then Linux came along and somehow " closed source " became a synonym for " proprietary " , and " open source " a synonym for " free " ( gratis ) .
Microsoft feeds into this by not releasing the source code to Windows .
Windows would be an even stronger ( proprietary ) product , IMO , if the source code were available.Lawrence Lessig tried to rectify this false dichotomy by founding the Creative Commons .
But the public has little knowledge of the existence of the Creative Commons , let alone the particulars of any of the licenses it offers.The Linux community shares some of the blame by touting libre , gratis , and " open source " in the same breath .
This lawsuit is a consequence of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back before Linux was popular, source code licenses were common and understood.
Especially common for software development libraries, you could pay one price for the binaries, or a higher price for both binaries and source, but it no case was it ever understood that the product was not proprietary.Then Linux came along and somehow "closed source" became a synonym for "proprietary", and "open source" a synonym for "free" (gratis).
Microsoft feeds into this by not releasing the source code to Windows.
Windows would be an even stronger (proprietary) product, IMO, if the source code were available.Lawrence Lessig tried to rectify this false dichotomy by founding the Creative Commons.
But the public has little knowledge of the existence of the Creative Commons, let alone the particulars of any of the licenses it offers.The Linux community shares some of the blame by touting libre, gratis, and "open source" in the same breath.
This lawsuit is a consequence of that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380732</id>
	<title>don't forget sales tax, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267890960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In California, at least, there's also some tricky sales tax issues to be aware of.  If you hand that client a CD-ROM with the product, for them to keep, of your $100K worth of toil, you have made "a transfer of tangible personal property", and sales tax is due on the whole $100K.  On the other hand, if you FTP it to their machine, it's just non-taxable services.  Or, if they provide you with a blank CD-ROM and you burn your software onto it as a service.</p><p>This is why architects retain ownership of the drawings they produce, for instance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In California , at least , there 's also some tricky sales tax issues to be aware of .
If you hand that client a CD-ROM with the product , for them to keep , of your $ 100K worth of toil , you have made " a transfer of tangible personal property " , and sales tax is due on the whole $ 100K .
On the other hand , if you FTP it to their machine , it 's just non-taxable services .
Or , if they provide you with a blank CD-ROM and you burn your software onto it as a service.This is why architects retain ownership of the drawings they produce , for instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In California, at least, there's also some tricky sales tax issues to be aware of.
If you hand that client a CD-ROM with the product, for them to keep, of your $100K worth of toil, you have made "a transfer of tangible personal property", and sales tax is due on the whole $100K.
On the other hand, if you FTP it to their machine, it's just non-taxable services.
Or, if they provide you with a blank CD-ROM and you burn your software onto it as a service.This is why architects retain ownership of the drawings they produce, for instance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380640</id>
	<title>Plate those boilers. . ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267890240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You might ask why I didn't make a contract with this client in the first place. It's because I've found, over the years, that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved.</p></div><p>Not having a contract in place before you start does speed things up, but it's kind of like running a heavy industries company without insurance.</p><p>Why not have two general contracts drawn up in advance; one which points out that the client gets what is essentially first publishing rights, or whatever comes closest to emulating the copyright system, and another where you sell the code outright.  Explain the difference up front and then pull out the pen.  "Option A is cheap, but I can sell the same code to other clients and you can't change it, and Option B will cost you several orders of magnitude more, but it's all yours forever and you can do whatever you want with it.  This is standard copyright practice.  We can start work as soon as you sign!"</p><p>People like clear options and little check boxes, and this would avoid weeks of legal dickering.  Yes, you may lose some work in the short term because people realize that you're not selling what they actually want for the price they can afford, but this way is more honest and your headaches will be fewer.</p><p>Just my opinion.</p><p>-FL</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might ask why I did n't make a contract with this client in the first place .
It 's because I 've found , over the years , that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved.Not having a contract in place before you start does speed things up , but it 's kind of like running a heavy industries company without insurance.Why not have two general contracts drawn up in advance ; one which points out that the client gets what is essentially first publishing rights , or whatever comes closest to emulating the copyright system , and another where you sell the code outright .
Explain the difference up front and then pull out the pen .
" Option A is cheap , but I can sell the same code to other clients and you ca n't change it , and Option B will cost you several orders of magnitude more , but it 's all yours forever and you can do whatever you want with it .
This is standard copyright practice .
We can start work as soon as you sign !
" People like clear options and little check boxes , and this would avoid weeks of legal dickering .
Yes , you may lose some work in the short term because people realize that you 're not selling what they actually want for the price they can afford , but this way is more honest and your headaches will be fewer.Just my opinion.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might ask why I didn't make a contract with this client in the first place.
It's because I've found, over the years, that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved.Not having a contract in place before you start does speed things up, but it's kind of like running a heavy industries company without insurance.Why not have two general contracts drawn up in advance; one which points out that the client gets what is essentially first publishing rights, or whatever comes closest to emulating the copyright system, and another where you sell the code outright.
Explain the difference up front and then pull out the pen.
"Option A is cheap, but I can sell the same code to other clients and you can't change it, and Option B will cost you several orders of magnitude more, but it's all yours forever and you can do whatever you want with it.
This is standard copyright practice.
We can start work as soon as you sign!
"People like clear options and little check boxes, and this would avoid weeks of legal dickering.
Yes, you may lose some work in the short term because people realize that you're not selling what they actually want for the price they can afford, but this way is more honest and your headaches will be fewer.Just my opinion.-FL
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382350</id>
	<title>Re:don't forget sales tax, too</title>
	<author>jbengt</author>
	<datestamp>1267906140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is why architects <strong>try to</strong> retain ownership of the drawings they produce, for instance.</p></div><p>Large clients often write contracts specifically calling the work as a work for hire.</p><p>Not to mention that even when they don't own the copyrights, the client <em>does</em> own the drawings, and <em>does</em> have the right to use them for the purpose for which they were created, which <em>does</em> involve copying and modifying</p><p>
Also, no architect's insurance would ever allow them to produce a product (in the US anyway).  Products have strict liability attached, so if something causes harm, even if unforeseeable, the product producer is liable, period.  Professional services such as architecture and engineering have liability only if the standard of care in developing the design was less than what a reasonable professional in the field would have used.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why architects try to retain ownership of the drawings they produce , for instance.Large clients often write contracts specifically calling the work as a work for hire.Not to mention that even when they do n't own the copyrights , the client does own the drawings , and does have the right to use them for the purpose for which they were created , which does involve copying and modifying Also , no architect 's insurance would ever allow them to produce a product ( in the US anyway ) .
Products have strict liability attached , so if something causes harm , even if unforeseeable , the product producer is liable , period .
Professional services such as architecture and engineering have liability only if the standard of care in developing the design was less than what a reasonable professional in the field would have used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why architects try to retain ownership of the drawings they produce, for instance.Large clients often write contracts specifically calling the work as a work for hire.Not to mention that even when they don't own the copyrights, the client does own the drawings, and does have the right to use them for the purpose for which they were created, which does involve copying and modifying
Also, no architect's insurance would ever allow them to produce a product (in the US anyway).
Products have strict liability attached, so if something causes harm, even if unforeseeable, the product producer is liable, period.
Professional services such as architecture and engineering have liability only if the standard of care in developing the design was less than what a reasonable professional in the field would have used.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380756</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1267891140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The dentist would probably give them to me if I asked.  Are you sure that's the same thing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The dentist would probably give them to me if I asked .
Are you sure that 's the same thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dentist would probably give them to me if I asked.
Are you sure that's the same thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380664</id>
	<title>Work for Hire</title>
	<author>zysus</author>
	<datestamp>1267890420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I deal with this frequently with sub-contractors (and firms) doing development.</p><p>It's actually very simple.<br>The understanding starts out as: This is a work-for-hire. All work product is property of the company.</p><p>Which eventually leads to a contract containing:<br>All source-code, build scripts, documentation, keys, any other materials required to use or reproduce the deliverable item are exclusive property and proprietary information of the company.<br>The contractor shall not release, reuse or redistribute any component of this work in any other business. This includes any custom libraries, headers or other application work-product.<br>This does not apply to off-the-shelf open-source tools and libraries, however such items shall be documented and approved in advance to avoid GPL contamination.</p><p>I don't see a problem here.<br>I expect to pay through the nose if i want exclusive rights and ownership to someone's special library, for exactly the reasons the article dictates.<br>Otherwise a non-exclusive source-code license that I may do with as I please is cheaper. A binary-only license might be cheaper still.</p><p>They devs have to make a living and if it wasn't cheaper/faster to use them in the first place I'd just write it myself.</p><p>Just try explaining these legal subtleties to someone who doesn't understand software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I deal with this frequently with sub-contractors ( and firms ) doing development.It 's actually very simple.The understanding starts out as : This is a work-for-hire .
All work product is property of the company.Which eventually leads to a contract containing : All source-code , build scripts , documentation , keys , any other materials required to use or reproduce the deliverable item are exclusive property and proprietary information of the company.The contractor shall not release , reuse or redistribute any component of this work in any other business .
This includes any custom libraries , headers or other application work-product.This does not apply to off-the-shelf open-source tools and libraries , however such items shall be documented and approved in advance to avoid GPL contamination.I do n't see a problem here.I expect to pay through the nose if i want exclusive rights and ownership to someone 's special library , for exactly the reasons the article dictates.Otherwise a non-exclusive source-code license that I may do with as I please is cheaper .
A binary-only license might be cheaper still.They devs have to make a living and if it was n't cheaper/faster to use them in the first place I 'd just write it myself.Just try explaining these legal subtleties to someone who does n't understand software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I deal with this frequently with sub-contractors (and firms) doing development.It's actually very simple.The understanding starts out as: This is a work-for-hire.
All work product is property of the company.Which eventually leads to a contract containing:All source-code, build scripts, documentation, keys, any other materials required to use or reproduce the deliverable item are exclusive property and proprietary information of the company.The contractor shall not release, reuse or redistribute any component of this work in any other business.
This includes any custom libraries, headers or other application work-product.This does not apply to off-the-shelf open-source tools and libraries, however such items shall be documented and approved in advance to avoid GPL contamination.I don't see a problem here.I expect to pay through the nose if i want exclusive rights and ownership to someone's special library, for exactly the reasons the article dictates.Otherwise a non-exclusive source-code license that I may do with as I please is cheaper.
A binary-only license might be cheaper still.They devs have to make a living and if it wasn't cheaper/faster to use them in the first place I'd just write it myself.Just try explaining these legal subtleties to someone who doesn't understand software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381722</id>
	<title>Re:We have a young Bill Gates writing now?</title>
	<author>Cwix</author>
	<datestamp>1267900980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do own the cake, but you don't own the secret recipe the cook used to make it.  If you want the secret recipe its gonna cost.  Why do you keep wanting to steal my recipes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do own the cake , but you do n't own the secret recipe the cook used to make it .
If you want the secret recipe its gon na cost .
Why do you keep wanting to steal my recipes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do own the cake, but you don't own the secret recipe the cook used to make it.
If you want the secret recipe its gonna cost.
Why do you keep wanting to steal my recipes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381388</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1267897920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The industry is adapting to modern times though, so you will now find some wedding photogs will include a DVD of low resolution images for you to put on the web</p> </div><p>The last several people I knew who got married got a DVD.......but if you consider 4xxx by 2xxx (I forget the exact resolution, but each jpeg was over 5 MB and I know the first part started with a 4) low resolution, I'd love to know what you consider high resolution.</p><p>As for the issues of assholes thinking that they own someone's wedding pictures?  That's why you just get a friend / family member who's competent and has a good quality camera - problem solved and it saves you several hundred / a few thousand bucks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The industry is adapting to modern times though , so you will now find some wedding photogs will include a DVD of low resolution images for you to put on the web The last several people I knew who got married got a DVD.......but if you consider 4xxx by 2xxx ( I forget the exact resolution , but each jpeg was over 5 MB and I know the first part started with a 4 ) low resolution , I 'd love to know what you consider high resolution.As for the issues of assholes thinking that they own someone 's wedding pictures ?
That 's why you just get a friend / family member who 's competent and has a good quality camera - problem solved and it saves you several hundred / a few thousand bucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The industry is adapting to modern times though, so you will now find some wedding photogs will include a DVD of low resolution images for you to put on the web The last several people I knew who got married got a DVD.......but if you consider 4xxx by 2xxx (I forget the exact resolution, but each jpeg was over 5 MB and I know the first part started with a 4) low resolution, I'd love to know what you consider high resolution.As for the issues of assholes thinking that they own someone's wedding pictures?
That's why you just get a friend / family member who's competent and has a good quality camera - problem solved and it saves you several hundred / a few thousand bucks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382296</id>
	<title>Re:Give them license to modify the code</title>
	<author>pandronic</author>
	<datestamp>1267905900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What clients should understand is that they pay for a working product.</p><p>And this is exactly what I deliver. If the client wants to modify the project he can go to another developer and that would cost him more, because the developer would have to first recreate the product and then add the new features, or he could come to me and I would only charge him for the modifications. How does that not make sense and why do a lot of clients nowadays have this false sense of entitlement?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What clients should understand is that they pay for a working product.And this is exactly what I deliver .
If the client wants to modify the project he can go to another developer and that would cost him more , because the developer would have to first recreate the product and then add the new features , or he could come to me and I would only charge him for the modifications .
How does that not make sense and why do a lot of clients nowadays have this false sense of entitlement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What clients should understand is that they pay for a working product.And this is exactly what I deliver.
If the client wants to modify the project he can go to another developer and that would cost him more, because the developer would have to first recreate the product and then add the new features, or he could come to me and I would only charge him for the modifications.
How does that not make sense and why do a lot of clients nowadays have this false sense of entitlement?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381504</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267898940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a matter of US law, you are wrong.  Copyright in a work for hire resides with the employer (or whomever the work was made for).  See Circular 9 of the US Copyright Office.  If an entire program is being developed as a contract piece, it *might* not qualify as a work for hire, but contracted software components and anything a normal employee writes within the scope of his employment are works for hire, and the people writing the checks own those works.</p><p>I don't know about the corresponding laws in other countries, but if you work in the US, you are woefully misinformed.</p></div><p>You are woefully misinformed as well.  Work for Hire in the USA must satisfy certain requirements.  The simplest is being an employee.  If you are a contractor, then in so far as computer programming there is NO WAY FOR THE WORK TO BE A WORK FOR HIRE... even if your contract says it is.</p><p>For computer programming, one's contract must explicitly include terms for the transfer of copyrights, otherwise the programmer will retain all copyrights, regardless of if he were being paid by someone else to do the work.</p><p>Oddly enough, even with a transfer of copyrights, the author recovers the copyrights after 35 years... and this right is inalienable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a matter of US law , you are wrong .
Copyright in a work for hire resides with the employer ( or whomever the work was made for ) .
See Circular 9 of the US Copyright Office .
If an entire program is being developed as a contract piece , it * might * not qualify as a work for hire , but contracted software components and anything a normal employee writes within the scope of his employment are works for hire , and the people writing the checks own those works.I do n't know about the corresponding laws in other countries , but if you work in the US , you are woefully misinformed.You are woefully misinformed as well .
Work for Hire in the USA must satisfy certain requirements .
The simplest is being an employee .
If you are a contractor , then in so far as computer programming there is NO WAY FOR THE WORK TO BE A WORK FOR HIRE... even if your contract says it is.For computer programming , one 's contract must explicitly include terms for the transfer of copyrights , otherwise the programmer will retain all copyrights , regardless of if he were being paid by someone else to do the work.Oddly enough , even with a transfer of copyrights , the author recovers the copyrights after 35 years... and this right is inalienable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a matter of US law, you are wrong.
Copyright in a work for hire resides with the employer (or whomever the work was made for).
See Circular 9 of the US Copyright Office.
If an entire program is being developed as a contract piece, it *might* not qualify as a work for hire, but contracted software components and anything a normal employee writes within the scope of his employment are works for hire, and the people writing the checks own those works.I don't know about the corresponding laws in other countries, but if you work in the US, you are woefully misinformed.You are woefully misinformed as well.
Work for Hire in the USA must satisfy certain requirements.
The simplest is being an employee.
If you are a contractor, then in so far as computer programming there is NO WAY FOR THE WORK TO BE A WORK FOR HIRE... even if your contract says it is.For computer programming, one's contract must explicitly include terms for the transfer of copyrights, otherwise the programmer will retain all copyrights, regardless of if he were being paid by someone else to do the work.Oddly enough, even with a transfer of copyrights, the author recovers the copyrights after 35 years... and this right is inalienable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380866</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267892520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bottom line is that if you're buying COTS, then you get whatever the license says. If you're paying for development, then you get whatever you negotiate. Articulate your requirement for data rights in the RFP, carefully review the proposals for meeting your requirements, then follow-up to ensure the contract says what you need it to say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bottom line is that if you 're buying COTS , then you get whatever the license says .
If you 're paying for development , then you get whatever you negotiate .
Articulate your requirement for data rights in the RFP , carefully review the proposals for meeting your requirements , then follow-up to ensure the contract says what you need it to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bottom line is that if you're buying COTS, then you get whatever the license says.
If you're paying for development, then you get whatever you negotiate.
Articulate your requirement for data rights in the RFP, carefully review the proposals for meeting your requirements, then follow-up to ensure the contract says what you need it to say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381234</id>
	<title>Re:hrm, so how does ANY coding work ever get done?</title>
	<author>Entrope</author>
	<datestamp>1267896540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright protects a particular form of expression.  It doesn't protect the underlying idea.  Even in broad copyright regimes, where you can copyright the particular contents of a phone book[1], copyright doesn't stop others from creating phone books that list names and numbers using the same method of ordering.</p><p>So you can use binary trees, lookaside caches, Bloom filters, or whatever other efficient algorithm you want -- copyright law won't stop you from using those algorithms.  You just can't take CODE from one place to another.  (If you think there's only one way to implement these algorithms, you're a worse programmer than you claim to be.)</p><p>[1]- That is one example of a database of facts.  Under other copyright systems, putting objective facts in one set is not protected by copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright protects a particular form of expression .
It does n't protect the underlying idea .
Even in broad copyright regimes , where you can copyright the particular contents of a phone book [ 1 ] , copyright does n't stop others from creating phone books that list names and numbers using the same method of ordering.So you can use binary trees , lookaside caches , Bloom filters , or whatever other efficient algorithm you want -- copyright law wo n't stop you from using those algorithms .
You just ca n't take CODE from one place to another .
( If you think there 's only one way to implement these algorithms , you 're a worse programmer than you claim to be .
) [ 1 ] - That is one example of a database of facts .
Under other copyright systems , putting objective facts in one set is not protected by copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright protects a particular form of expression.
It doesn't protect the underlying idea.
Even in broad copyright regimes, where you can copyright the particular contents of a phone book[1], copyright doesn't stop others from creating phone books that list names and numbers using the same method of ordering.So you can use binary trees, lookaside caches, Bloom filters, or whatever other efficient algorithm you want -- copyright law won't stop you from using those algorithms.
You just can't take CODE from one place to another.
(If you think there's only one way to implement these algorithms, you're a worse programmer than you claim to be.
)[1]- That is one example of a database of facts.
Under other copyright systems, putting objective facts in one set is not protected by copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381074</id>
	<title>Nope, not with GPL-based software !</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1267894620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the question of ownership / work-for-hire might exist for proprietary software (MS-Windows, SAP, etc), it most emphatically \_does\_not\_ for software developed for a GPL base.</p><p>As derivative works, the software creator is required to accept the GPL to distribute her software.  The GPL clearly states that anyone who receives binaries is entitled to source \_and\_ rights of further modification and distribution.  Stallman wrote it this way after frustration with a Xerox printer driver.</p><p>Now, the question might arise "What is a derivative work?"  "Pure" C code without any OS-specific references obviously is not.  IANAL, but I would also suggest that any code that is trivially portable between OSes (simple recompilation with OS flag set) is also not derivative.</p><p>But if it runs on  Linux/GNU and won't run on *BSD without porting, then it sure looks derivative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the question of ownership / work-for-hire might exist for proprietary software ( MS-Windows , SAP , etc ) , it most emphatically \ _does \ _not \ _ for software developed for a GPL base.As derivative works , the software creator is required to accept the GPL to distribute her software .
The GPL clearly states that anyone who receives binaries is entitled to source \ _and \ _ rights of further modification and distribution .
Stallman wrote it this way after frustration with a Xerox printer driver.Now , the question might arise " What is a derivative work ?
" " Pure " C code without any OS-specific references obviously is not .
IANAL , but I would also suggest that any code that is trivially portable between OSes ( simple recompilation with OS flag set ) is also not derivative.But if it runs on Linux/GNU and wo n't run on * BSD without porting , then it sure looks derivative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the question of ownership / work-for-hire might exist for proprietary software (MS-Windows, SAP, etc), it most emphatically \_does\_not\_ for software developed for a GPL base.As derivative works, the software creator is required to accept the GPL to distribute her software.
The GPL clearly states that anyone who receives binaries is entitled to source \_and\_ rights of further modification and distribution.
Stallman wrote it this way after frustration with a Xerox printer driver.Now, the question might arise "What is a derivative work?
"  "Pure" C code without any OS-specific references obviously is not.
IANAL, but I would also suggest that any code that is trivially portable between OSes (simple recompilation with OS flag set) is also not derivative.But if it runs on  Linux/GNU and won't run on *BSD without porting, then it sure looks derivative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381528</id>
	<title>examples fail</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1267899120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue is that of cost and risk. If I am paying for the entirety of the cost of designing the software I expect entirety of ownership. These contracts also typically put the burden of risk on the client since it is usually very difficult to avoid paying at least the majority of the agreed fee regardless of whether the software is up to scratch. </p><p>If I was only paying a fraction of the cost of the software, i.e. the cost was being shared between multiple customers, then no I would not expect to control/own it in the same way.</p><blockquote><div><p>If I buy a bible, I don&rsquo;t own the original Lindisfarne Gospels;</p></div> </blockquote><p>No, but I didn't buy the Lindisfarne Gospels, I bought this bible, I own it and it's my bible. I do whatever I like with it. Tear pages out, glue new ones in, make a lot of paper aeroplanes if I like. But example is only at all comparable if I was paying for finished, mass-produced software. If I pay someone to <i>write</i> a new bible, the default position is that the publisher owns it. They take the cost and risk burden and hence they generally take ownership.</p><blockquote><div><p>if I pay a plumber to fix my tap, I don&rsquo;t ask him to leave his toolbox so I can fix it myself next time;</p></div></blockquote><p>No but I expect him to leave the tap. I expect to be able to pay another plumber to fix the tap, or to do so myself. And by the way, taps do actually come with instructions and use standardised tools so that anyone can fix them. Regardless, again the example is not applicable since the article is talking about creating something new not fixing something old. If a developer is paid to fix an existing piece of software does he expect to own the software?</p><blockquote><div><p>if I buy Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince on Blu-ray, I don&rsquo;t own the movie but only a copy (whose usage is restricted by the terms of the licence);</p></div> </blockquote><p>Technologists aligning their argument with the MPAA, interesting. I'll not bother posting a retort since they're posted here frequently.</p><blockquote><div><p>if I buy Microsoft Word, I own one copy of the compiled code, not the source.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Again this is the purchase of a finished, mass produced piece of software, not payment to design a custom piece of software for me. If I pay an architect to design a building, the architect does not continue to have any rights over any use of that building. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is that of cost and risk .
If I am paying for the entirety of the cost of designing the software I expect entirety of ownership .
These contracts also typically put the burden of risk on the client since it is usually very difficult to avoid paying at least the majority of the agreed fee regardless of whether the software is up to scratch .
If I was only paying a fraction of the cost of the software , i.e .
the cost was being shared between multiple customers , then no I would not expect to control/own it in the same way.If I buy a bible , I don    t own the original Lindisfarne Gospels ; No , but I did n't buy the Lindisfarne Gospels , I bought this bible , I own it and it 's my bible .
I do whatever I like with it .
Tear pages out , glue new ones in , make a lot of paper aeroplanes if I like .
But example is only at all comparable if I was paying for finished , mass-produced software .
If I pay someone to write a new bible , the default position is that the publisher owns it .
They take the cost and risk burden and hence they generally take ownership.if I pay a plumber to fix my tap , I don    t ask him to leave his toolbox so I can fix it myself next time ; No but I expect him to leave the tap .
I expect to be able to pay another plumber to fix the tap , or to do so myself .
And by the way , taps do actually come with instructions and use standardised tools so that anyone can fix them .
Regardless , again the example is not applicable since the article is talking about creating something new not fixing something old .
If a developer is paid to fix an existing piece of software does he expect to own the software ? if I buy Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince on Blu-ray , I don    t own the movie but only a copy ( whose usage is restricted by the terms of the licence ) ; Technologists aligning their argument with the MPAA , interesting .
I 'll not bother posting a retort since they 're posted here frequently.if I buy Microsoft Word , I own one copy of the compiled code , not the source .
Again this is the purchase of a finished , mass produced piece of software , not payment to design a custom piece of software for me .
If I pay an architect to design a building , the architect does not continue to have any rights over any use of that building .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is that of cost and risk.
If I am paying for the entirety of the cost of designing the software I expect entirety of ownership.
These contracts also typically put the burden of risk on the client since it is usually very difficult to avoid paying at least the majority of the agreed fee regardless of whether the software is up to scratch.
If I was only paying a fraction of the cost of the software, i.e.
the cost was being shared between multiple customers, then no I would not expect to control/own it in the same way.If I buy a bible, I don’t own the original Lindisfarne Gospels; No, but I didn't buy the Lindisfarne Gospels, I bought this bible, I own it and it's my bible.
I do whatever I like with it.
Tear pages out, glue new ones in, make a lot of paper aeroplanes if I like.
But example is only at all comparable if I was paying for finished, mass-produced software.
If I pay someone to write a new bible, the default position is that the publisher owns it.
They take the cost and risk burden and hence they generally take ownership.if I pay a plumber to fix my tap, I don’t ask him to leave his toolbox so I can fix it myself next time;No but I expect him to leave the tap.
I expect to be able to pay another plumber to fix the tap, or to do so myself.
And by the way, taps do actually come with instructions and use standardised tools so that anyone can fix them.
Regardless, again the example is not applicable since the article is talking about creating something new not fixing something old.
If a developer is paid to fix an existing piece of software does he expect to own the software?if I buy Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince on Blu-ray, I don’t own the movie but only a copy (whose usage is restricted by the terms of the licence); Technologists aligning their argument with the MPAA, interesting.
I'll not bother posting a retort since they're posted here frequently.if I buy Microsoft Word, I own one copy of the compiled code, not the source.
Again this is the purchase of a finished, mass produced piece of software, not payment to design a custom piece of software for me.
If I pay an architect to design a building, the architect does not continue to have any rights over any use of that building. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384562</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>pugugly</author>
	<datestamp>1267878960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but fundamentally the right Kevin is asserting here is that you have no ownership right <i>even to the finished product</i>.</p><p>This is rather like saying that if you knock out a wall, you've infringed the architects ownership of the plans, or you have no right to repair your car yourself, you *have* to go to the dealership.</p><p>Sorry, if this is his view of his rights as creator, frankly, he has entitlement issues. Get into the real world with the rest of us, or even try to assert that everyone should have these rights, but trying to pretend you're in some special category where the company doesn't own the work they paid you while ignoring the fact that this is the relationship of everyone else to their employer is just trying to carve out a privileged position for your work.</p><p>Pug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but fundamentally the right Kevin is asserting here is that you have no ownership right even to the finished product.This is rather like saying that if you knock out a wall , you 've infringed the architects ownership of the plans , or you have no right to repair your car yourself , you * have * to go to the dealership.Sorry , if this is his view of his rights as creator , frankly , he has entitlement issues .
Get into the real world with the rest of us , or even try to assert that everyone should have these rights , but trying to pretend you 're in some special category where the company does n't own the work they paid you while ignoring the fact that this is the relationship of everyone else to their employer is just trying to carve out a privileged position for your work.Pug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but fundamentally the right Kevin is asserting here is that you have no ownership right even to the finished product.This is rather like saying that if you knock out a wall, you've infringed the architects ownership of the plans, or you have no right to repair your car yourself, you *have* to go to the dealership.Sorry, if this is his view of his rights as creator, frankly, he has entitlement issues.
Get into the real world with the rest of us, or even try to assert that everyone should have these rights, but trying to pretend you're in some special category where the company doesn't own the work they paid you while ignoring the fact that this is the relationship of everyone else to their employer is just trying to carve out a privileged position for your work.Pug.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383954</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267873680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Would it have killed you to use 'should' or some other qualifier? Stating opinion as fact is lame enough, giving evidence to disprove yourself in the next line is just sad.</p></div></blockquote><p> Everyone knows an opinion becomes a fact once you convince enough people that it's true.</p><p>Every proud Palin American knows that when you qualify your opinions, you'll never convince people that your opinions are true.  Then, your opinions will never become <em>facts</em>.  You self-loathing libtards can twist empiricism to argue against yourself, but you're just giving aid and comfort to your ideological enemies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it have killed you to use 'should ' or some other qualifier ?
Stating opinion as fact is lame enough , giving evidence to disprove yourself in the next line is just sad .
Everyone knows an opinion becomes a fact once you convince enough people that it 's true.Every proud Palin American knows that when you qualify your opinions , you 'll never convince people that your opinions are true .
Then , your opinions will never become facts .
You self-loathing libtards can twist empiricism to argue against yourself , but you 're just giving aid and comfort to your ideological enemies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it have killed you to use 'should' or some other qualifier?
Stating opinion as fact is lame enough, giving evidence to disprove yourself in the next line is just sad.
Everyone knows an opinion becomes a fact once you convince enough people that it's true.Every proud Palin American knows that when you qualify your opinions, you'll never convince people that your opinions are true.
Then, your opinions will never become facts.
You self-loathing libtards can twist empiricism to argue against yourself, but you're just giving aid and comfort to your ideological enemies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380718</id>
	<title>Hypocrites</title>
	<author>JDevers</author>
	<datestamp>1267890840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is funny watching everyone on here discuss how ignorant all their users are for thinking they own the code simply for paying for it...and later today there will be a post discussing the RIAA and why they are an evil organization for trying to force their users who purchased their works to recognize that they don't now own that music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is funny watching everyone on here discuss how ignorant all their users are for thinking they own the code simply for paying for it...and later today there will be a post discussing the RIAA and why they are an evil organization for trying to force their users who purchased their works to recognize that they do n't now own that music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is funny watching everyone on here discuss how ignorant all their users are for thinking they own the code simply for paying for it...and later today there will be a post discussing the RIAA and why they are an evil organization for trying to force their users who purchased their works to recognize that they don't now own that music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380728</id>
	<title>Whaaaaaaaat?</title>
	<author>Ransak</author>
	<datestamp>1267890900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTA:<p> <i>"if I pay a plumber to fix my tap, I don&rsquo;t ask him to leave his toolbox so I can fix it myself next time"</i>
</p><p> <i>"You might ask why I didn&rsquo;t make a contract with this client in the first place. It&rsquo;s because I&rsquo;ve found, over the years, that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved."</i> </p><p>
So, this developer doesn't disclose this to customers who aren't aware that they are screwed when the developer walks away? His tortured analogy of the plumber and his tools is only correct if the plumber is installing pipes, valves, etc. that are 100\% proprietary to the plumber and can't be purchased anywhere else. The word slimy leaps to mind for his business ethics (and plumbing in general).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " if I pay a plumber to fix my tap , I don    t ask him to leave his toolbox so I can fix it myself next time " " You might ask why I didn    t make a contract with this client in the first place .
It    s because I    ve found , over the years , that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved .
" So , this developer does n't disclose this to customers who are n't aware that they are screwed when the developer walks away ?
His tortured analogy of the plumber and his tools is only correct if the plumber is installing pipes , valves , etc .
that are 100 \ % proprietary to the plumber and ca n't be purchased anywhere else .
The word slimy leaps to mind for his business ethics ( and plumbing in general ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: "if I pay a plumber to fix my tap, I don’t ask him to leave his toolbox so I can fix it myself next time"
 "You might ask why I didn’t make a contract with this client in the first place.
It’s because I’ve found, over the years, that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved.
" 
So, this developer doesn't disclose this to customers who aren't aware that they are screwed when the developer walks away?
His tortured analogy of the plumber and his tools is only correct if the plumber is installing pipes, valves, etc.
that are 100\% proprietary to the plumber and can't be purchased anywhere else.
The word slimy leaps to mind for his business ethics (and plumbing in general).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382824</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>mr\_matticus</author>
	<datestamp>1267908900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are woefully misinformed as well.</p> </div><p>GP broadly misstates the work for hire doctrine, but so do you--just in the opposite direction.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> If you are a contractor, then in so far as computer programming there is NO WAY FOR THE WORK TO BE A WORK FOR HIRE... even if your contract says it is.</p></div><p>Not so.  Written agreement by both parties in a valid contract can establish the work as a work for hire copyright so long as it is commissioned for a collective work.  17 USC 101.</p><p>If your customer provides a copyrightable data set or is integrating your software product with any other copyrightable work, they have a collective work claim, and coupled with contract language stating that it is a work for hire, it will usually be so.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For computer programming, one's contract must explicitly include terms for the transfer of copyrights, otherwise the programmer will retain all copyrights</p></div><p>This is true, <em>if</em> the programmer is an independent entity and is contracting for work with a third party.  Stating that you are an independent contractor does not make it so, however, as many "contractors" are in fact employees for the purposes of the Copyright Act.</p><p>In order to be considered an independent contractor for copyright (and agency purposes in general), you must demonstrate that the putative employer does not maintain any substantial control over the work or over the programmer, and that the programmer's does not comport himself in a manner that would lead others to believe he was an agent of the employer.  In modern programming relationships, this has grown increasingly difficult, given the increased input and meetings with the customer, along with their increased executive authority over project direction.</p><p>Assuming you did accept a simple commission and are deemed not an employee-agent, the product will <em>not</em> be considered a work for hire <em>only if</em> it is not part of a collective work.  The collective work need not be entirely software to qualify, so programmers are rarely off the hook on that basis alone.  The parties in this case must agree that the product is a work for hire, as required to fulfill the definition of 17 USC 101 under paragraph 2 of the "work for hire" definition.</p><p>What this means in practice is that all contracts should specify, in the positive or negative, the work for hire status to minimize disputes later on.  Good attorneys can move the work for hire line a fair distance both ways because the concept of agency is fairly nebulous and the degree of customer control exercised necessary can vary wildly from case to case.</p><p>If the customer explicitly agreed that it was not a work for hire, particularly a sophisticated customer, it probably won't be found one later.  If the contract explicitly states that it <em>is</em> a work for hire, it is a virtual certainty that federal judges will make it so by the end of the trial, and usually will do so without so much as breaking a sweat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are woefully misinformed as well .
GP broadly misstates the work for hire doctrine , but so do you--just in the opposite direction .
If you are a contractor , then in so far as computer programming there is NO WAY FOR THE WORK TO BE A WORK FOR HIRE... even if your contract says it is.Not so .
Written agreement by both parties in a valid contract can establish the work as a work for hire copyright so long as it is commissioned for a collective work .
17 USC 101.If your customer provides a copyrightable data set or is integrating your software product with any other copyrightable work , they have a collective work claim , and coupled with contract language stating that it is a work for hire , it will usually be so.For computer programming , one 's contract must explicitly include terms for the transfer of copyrights , otherwise the programmer will retain all copyrightsThis is true , if the programmer is an independent entity and is contracting for work with a third party .
Stating that you are an independent contractor does not make it so , however , as many " contractors " are in fact employees for the purposes of the Copyright Act.In order to be considered an independent contractor for copyright ( and agency purposes in general ) , you must demonstrate that the putative employer does not maintain any substantial control over the work or over the programmer , and that the programmer 's does not comport himself in a manner that would lead others to believe he was an agent of the employer .
In modern programming relationships , this has grown increasingly difficult , given the increased input and meetings with the customer , along with their increased executive authority over project direction.Assuming you did accept a simple commission and are deemed not an employee-agent , the product will not be considered a work for hire only if it is not part of a collective work .
The collective work need not be entirely software to qualify , so programmers are rarely off the hook on that basis alone .
The parties in this case must agree that the product is a work for hire , as required to fulfill the definition of 17 USC 101 under paragraph 2 of the " work for hire " definition.What this means in practice is that all contracts should specify , in the positive or negative , the work for hire status to minimize disputes later on .
Good attorneys can move the work for hire line a fair distance both ways because the concept of agency is fairly nebulous and the degree of customer control exercised necessary can vary wildly from case to case.If the customer explicitly agreed that it was not a work for hire , particularly a sophisticated customer , it probably wo n't be found one later .
If the contract explicitly states that it is a work for hire , it is a virtual certainty that federal judges will make it so by the end of the trial , and usually will do so without so much as breaking a sweat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are woefully misinformed as well.
GP broadly misstates the work for hire doctrine, but so do you--just in the opposite direction.
If you are a contractor, then in so far as computer programming there is NO WAY FOR THE WORK TO BE A WORK FOR HIRE... even if your contract says it is.Not so.
Written agreement by both parties in a valid contract can establish the work as a work for hire copyright so long as it is commissioned for a collective work.
17 USC 101.If your customer provides a copyrightable data set or is integrating your software product with any other copyrightable work, they have a collective work claim, and coupled with contract language stating that it is a work for hire, it will usually be so.For computer programming, one's contract must explicitly include terms for the transfer of copyrights, otherwise the programmer will retain all copyrightsThis is true, if the programmer is an independent entity and is contracting for work with a third party.
Stating that you are an independent contractor does not make it so, however, as many "contractors" are in fact employees for the purposes of the Copyright Act.In order to be considered an independent contractor for copyright (and agency purposes in general), you must demonstrate that the putative employer does not maintain any substantial control over the work or over the programmer, and that the programmer's does not comport himself in a manner that would lead others to believe he was an agent of the employer.
In modern programming relationships, this has grown increasingly difficult, given the increased input and meetings with the customer, along with their increased executive authority over project direction.Assuming you did accept a simple commission and are deemed not an employee-agent, the product will not be considered a work for hire only if it is not part of a collective work.
The collective work need not be entirely software to qualify, so programmers are rarely off the hook on that basis alone.
The parties in this case must agree that the product is a work for hire, as required to fulfill the definition of 17 USC 101 under paragraph 2 of the "work for hire" definition.What this means in practice is that all contracts should specify, in the positive or negative, the work for hire status to minimize disputes later on.
Good attorneys can move the work for hire line a fair distance both ways because the concept of agency is fairly nebulous and the degree of customer control exercised necessary can vary wildly from case to case.If the customer explicitly agreed that it was not a work for hire, particularly a sophisticated customer, it probably won't be found one later.
If the contract explicitly states that it is a work for hire, it is a virtual certainty that federal judges will make it so by the end of the trial, and usually will do so without so much as breaking a sweat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380692</id>
	<title>Seems like as usual people didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267890660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The arguments he's posing actually have merit - his main argument seems to be that if a customer buys something that he developed, they on occasion believe they own his self-written custom libraries - essentially his tools. The plumber analogy begins to make more sense at this point. They paid for the finished product and can do whatever they want with it (unless contractually obligated not to, but that's another can of worms) but they did NOT pay for the tools he used to develop it. Perhaps the best analogy would be to say that if a customer pays for software they should not expect to own the development platform which was used to create that software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The arguments he 's posing actually have merit - his main argument seems to be that if a customer buys something that he developed , they on occasion believe they own his self-written custom libraries - essentially his tools .
The plumber analogy begins to make more sense at this point .
They paid for the finished product and can do whatever they want with it ( unless contractually obligated not to , but that 's another can of worms ) but they did NOT pay for the tools he used to develop it .
Perhaps the best analogy would be to say that if a customer pays for software they should not expect to own the development platform which was used to create that software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The arguments he's posing actually have merit - his main argument seems to be that if a customer buys something that he developed, they on occasion believe they own his self-written custom libraries - essentially his tools.
The plumber analogy begins to make more sense at this point.
They paid for the finished product and can do whatever they want with it (unless contractually obligated not to, but that's another can of worms) but they did NOT pay for the tools he used to develop it.
Perhaps the best analogy would be to say that if a customer pays for software they should not expect to own the development platform which was used to create that software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380646</id>
	<title>Re:same deal with photography</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1267890300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing in copyright law preventing you from giving them full resolution originals with a liberal usage license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing in copyright law preventing you from giving them full resolution originals with a liberal usage license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing in copyright law preventing you from giving them full resolution originals with a liberal usage license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381278</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267896900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit, most "expensive" wedding photographers are immature hacks who think they're artists. I've a wanna-be hack, but don't charge my friends. If they ask, I'll take pictures. Those who want to have a real photogropher but like my pictures generally ask me to take pictures too. I just ask them to make sure their agreement with the wedding photogropher doesn't preclude other photographing. My feedback is that mine get printed, the professional's don't.</p><p>If you want a real test of the photographer, ask them 2 questions. "what retouching do you do to all of the photographs" and "May I see the albums from the last 3 weddings you shot."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... their best photographs are really irrelevant. What they'll actually do for yours is important. If your "professional photographer" doesn't do anything but red-eye and "I'm feeling lucky" in Picassa, or, worse, not even that, what the hell are you paying for. In the 100 people you invite to your wedding, someone's got a DSLR and can compose a picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit , most " expensive " wedding photographers are immature hacks who think they 're artists .
I 've a wan na-be hack , but do n't charge my friends .
If they ask , I 'll take pictures .
Those who want to have a real photogropher but like my pictures generally ask me to take pictures too .
I just ask them to make sure their agreement with the wedding photogropher does n't preclude other photographing .
My feedback is that mine get printed , the professional 's do n't.If you want a real test of the photographer , ask them 2 questions .
" what retouching do you do to all of the photographs " and " May I see the albums from the last 3 weddings you shot .
" ... their best photographs are really irrelevant .
What they 'll actually do for yours is important .
If your " professional photographer " does n't do anything but red-eye and " I 'm feeling lucky " in Picassa , or , worse , not even that , what the hell are you paying for .
In the 100 people you invite to your wedding , someone 's got a DSLR and can compose a picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit, most "expensive" wedding photographers are immature hacks who think they're artists.
I've a wanna-be hack, but don't charge my friends.
If they ask, I'll take pictures.
Those who want to have a real photogropher but like my pictures generally ask me to take pictures too.
I just ask them to make sure their agreement with the wedding photogropher doesn't preclude other photographing.
My feedback is that mine get printed, the professional's don't.If you want a real test of the photographer, ask them 2 questions.
"what retouching do you do to all of the photographs" and "May I see the albums from the last 3 weddings you shot.
" ... their best photographs are really irrelevant.
What they'll actually do for yours is important.
If your "professional photographer" doesn't do anything but red-eye and "I'm feeling lucky" in Picassa, or, worse, not even that, what the hell are you paying for.
In the 100 people you invite to your wedding, someone's got a DSLR and can compose a picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381420</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1267898160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't know about the corresponding laws in other countries, but if you work in the US, you are woefully misinformed.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Judging by the site (http://www.pcpro.co.uk) that this personal rant posing as journalism is posted to, I would have to guess that the author does not work in the US.  Hopefully he also doesn't do contract work for companies in the US either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the corresponding laws in other countries , but if you work in the US , you are woefully misinformed .
Judging by the site ( http : //www.pcpro.co.uk ) that this personal rant posing as journalism is posted to , I would have to guess that the author does not work in the US .
Hopefully he also does n't do contract work for companies in the US either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the corresponding laws in other countries, but if you work in the US, you are woefully misinformed.
Judging by the site (http://www.pcpro.co.uk) that this personal rant posing as journalism is posted to, I would have to guess that the author does not work in the US.
Hopefully he also doesn't do contract work for companies in the US either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381206</id>
	<title>Explanations!</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1267896120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've done a significant amount of contract work over the years, "flying solo" so to speak. I've only once had a contention about copyrights, and since then, I've never done work where I don't own what I write!</p><p>My explanation goes something like this:</p><p>I have years of experience and have developed a standard set of tools that I use to solve different types of problems. I intend to use these tools to cut costs for you, and it's that time savings that makes me worth the money that I'm charging - I'll do a good job in a short time. But I'm writing the software for YOU, not for somebody else, and if I develop a new idea working on your code, I intend to use that same tool elsewhere. So I'll keep the copyrights, leaving me free to do my job elsewhere, and grant you a license letting you use the software as you see fit. You can do what you want to do, I can do what I want to do, and we can both be happy! I will grant you unlimited use license, including access to the sources, and I will make it transferrable - if you sell the business, it's no problem. The only right I won't grant is the right the resell the software, because I don't want to compete with myself!</p><p>This has never been a problem - when explained this way, nobody objects and everybody sees what I'm after.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've done a significant amount of contract work over the years , " flying solo " so to speak .
I 've only once had a contention about copyrights , and since then , I 've never done work where I do n't own what I write ! My explanation goes something like this : I have years of experience and have developed a standard set of tools that I use to solve different types of problems .
I intend to use these tools to cut costs for you , and it 's that time savings that makes me worth the money that I 'm charging - I 'll do a good job in a short time .
But I 'm writing the software for YOU , not for somebody else , and if I develop a new idea working on your code , I intend to use that same tool elsewhere .
So I 'll keep the copyrights , leaving me free to do my job elsewhere , and grant you a license letting you use the software as you see fit .
You can do what you want to do , I can do what I want to do , and we can both be happy !
I will grant you unlimited use license , including access to the sources , and I will make it transferrable - if you sell the business , it 's no problem .
The only right I wo n't grant is the right the resell the software , because I do n't want to compete with myself ! This has never been a problem - when explained this way , nobody objects and everybody sees what I 'm after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've done a significant amount of contract work over the years, "flying solo" so to speak.
I've only once had a contention about copyrights, and since then, I've never done work where I don't own what I write!My explanation goes something like this:I have years of experience and have developed a standard set of tools that I use to solve different types of problems.
I intend to use these tools to cut costs for you, and it's that time savings that makes me worth the money that I'm charging - I'll do a good job in a short time.
But I'm writing the software for YOU, not for somebody else, and if I develop a new idea working on your code, I intend to use that same tool elsewhere.
So I'll keep the copyrights, leaving me free to do my job elsewhere, and grant you a license letting you use the software as you see fit.
You can do what you want to do, I can do what I want to do, and we can both be happy!
I will grant you unlimited use license, including access to the sources, and I will make it transferrable - if you sell the business, it's no problem.
The only right I won't grant is the right the resell the software, because I don't want to compete with myself!This has never been a problem - when explained this way, nobody objects and everybody sees what I'm after.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381262</id>
	<title>Re:We have a young Bill Gates writing now?</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1267896660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If I paid someone to paint a painting for me, I own the painting.</i></p><p>Sort of... you own the physical painting, but that isn't the same as owning the copyright. Whether you owned the copyright (in whole or specific rights of duplication, etc) would depend on the purchase contract you arranged with the painter.</p><p>Same with a book. If you buy a book you own the physical object, but you don't own the copyright. You can't go making copies of the book and selling them yourself.</p><p>Same with software. If you "buy" a piece of software, what you've bought depends on the contract. You're typically going to be buying the physical media, and rights to use it either indefinitely or maybe for a limited period of time (cf renting a video), but not any copyright ownership unless that was specified in the purchase contract.</p><p>It doesn't make any difference whether you're buying an off-the shelf painting or software title, or comissioning someone to create a custom work for you. What you end up owning and the rights you have depend on the contract. Copyright law says that the author by default owns the copyright, so if you want anything different you need to put it in the contract.</p><p>There's no difference between paintings, software, books or any other type of copyrightable material  - the same copyright laws cover them all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I paid someone to paint a painting for me , I own the painting.Sort of... you own the physical painting , but that is n't the same as owning the copyright .
Whether you owned the copyright ( in whole or specific rights of duplication , etc ) would depend on the purchase contract you arranged with the painter.Same with a book .
If you buy a book you own the physical object , but you do n't own the copyright .
You ca n't go making copies of the book and selling them yourself.Same with software .
If you " buy " a piece of software , what you 've bought depends on the contract .
You 're typically going to be buying the physical media , and rights to use it either indefinitely or maybe for a limited period of time ( cf renting a video ) , but not any copyright ownership unless that was specified in the purchase contract.It does n't make any difference whether you 're buying an off-the shelf painting or software title , or comissioning someone to create a custom work for you .
What you end up owning and the rights you have depend on the contract .
Copyright law says that the author by default owns the copyright , so if you want anything different you need to put it in the contract.There 's no difference between paintings , software , books or any other type of copyrightable material - the same copyright laws cover them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I paid someone to paint a painting for me, I own the painting.Sort of... you own the physical painting, but that isn't the same as owning the copyright.
Whether you owned the copyright (in whole or specific rights of duplication, etc) would depend on the purchase contract you arranged with the painter.Same with a book.
If you buy a book you own the physical object, but you don't own the copyright.
You can't go making copies of the book and selling them yourself.Same with software.
If you "buy" a piece of software, what you've bought depends on the contract.
You're typically going to be buying the physical media, and rights to use it either indefinitely or maybe for a limited period of time (cf renting a video), but not any copyright ownership unless that was specified in the purchase contract.It doesn't make any difference whether you're buying an off-the shelf painting or software title, or comissioning someone to create a custom work for you.
What you end up owning and the rights you have depend on the contract.
Copyright law says that the author by default owns the copyright, so if you want anything different you need to put it in the contract.There's no difference between paintings, software, books or any other type of copyrightable material  - the same copyright laws cover them all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381170</id>
	<title>A customer perspective.</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1267895760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the responses here are arguing legalities.  That's nice and all, but most of how business works in the real world doesn't wind up in the court system, but by people just making decisions.  So I think it's valuable to present the perspective of a customer.</p><p>From my perspective, it MIGHT be acceptable to not get the source code for the work, given one of three possible conditions:</p><p>1. I never expect to modify or maintain the application in any way whatsoever during it's lifetime. (We all know this is relatively unlikely)<br><i>or</i><br>2. I completely trust the contractor to do good work, charge me reasonable competitive rates, and provide some exit strategy should the developer retire, die, etc.<br><i>or</i><br>3. The program is largely of very limited value, and is highly unlikely to ever be of any great value.</p><p>In all other cases, source code is largely a must.  Imagine a plumber replacing your old steel pipes with copper, but somehow locking all the pipework down so only HE could work on the pipes.  Nobody would stand for that, as pipes are basic infra-structure that survive longer than you or the plumber.  Code doesn't always survive that long..  but sometimes it just sits and works for decades (I know I've written code for the short term I never expected to still be used 7 years later).</p><p>The case of custom libraries owned by the developer are a special case.  Everyone who's done software development for any length of time has bought 3rd party libraries without source code.  This case is \_mostly\_ the same as that, but with some additional risks involved.  Contractors aren't in the business of selling 3rd party libraries, so it's likely there's:</p><p>No documentation, or at best poor documentation (why write documentation when you're the only one who uses it?)<br>The API is poor, and not for general usage.<br>I'd expect the library to be more buggy, since it hasn't gone through testing by multiple different developers trying to do things the author didn't think of.</p><p>The above all lead towards greater lock-in to the original author.  That's great for the author, but not so great for me, the customer.  If the application didn't meet one of my above three cases I'd likely insist on very good documentation of the functions the contractor used from his custom library.</p><p>Just for the sake of argument, I'll state that the vast majority of people hiring contractors for software development aren't going to have any clue about any of the above.  If you do try to advise them most will not understand how few applications fall into category 1.  Not enough people think of code as essentially custom built machines with many many custom built parts inside it.  If you told them that, they might start understanding why getting the "design documents" is so important "should the machine ever break down".  Then again, most people aren't imaginative enough to understand why they'd ever want to change anything in the application, or how the changing software eco-system will eventually obsolete that program designed 10 years ago to run on Windows 98.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the responses here are arguing legalities .
That 's nice and all , but most of how business works in the real world does n't wind up in the court system , but by people just making decisions .
So I think it 's valuable to present the perspective of a customer.From my perspective , it MIGHT be acceptable to not get the source code for the work , given one of three possible conditions : 1 .
I never expect to modify or maintain the application in any way whatsoever during it 's lifetime .
( We all know this is relatively unlikely ) or2 .
I completely trust the contractor to do good work , charge me reasonable competitive rates , and provide some exit strategy should the developer retire , die , etc.or3 .
The program is largely of very limited value , and is highly unlikely to ever be of any great value.In all other cases , source code is largely a must .
Imagine a plumber replacing your old steel pipes with copper , but somehow locking all the pipework down so only HE could work on the pipes .
Nobody would stand for that , as pipes are basic infra-structure that survive longer than you or the plumber .
Code does n't always survive that long.. but sometimes it just sits and works for decades ( I know I 've written code for the short term I never expected to still be used 7 years later ) .The case of custom libraries owned by the developer are a special case .
Everyone who 's done software development for any length of time has bought 3rd party libraries without source code .
This case is \ _mostly \ _ the same as that , but with some additional risks involved .
Contractors are n't in the business of selling 3rd party libraries , so it 's likely there 's : No documentation , or at best poor documentation ( why write documentation when you 're the only one who uses it ?
) The API is poor , and not for general usage.I 'd expect the library to be more buggy , since it has n't gone through testing by multiple different developers trying to do things the author did n't think of.The above all lead towards greater lock-in to the original author .
That 's great for the author , but not so great for me , the customer .
If the application did n't meet one of my above three cases I 'd likely insist on very good documentation of the functions the contractor used from his custom library.Just for the sake of argument , I 'll state that the vast majority of people hiring contractors for software development are n't going to have any clue about any of the above .
If you do try to advise them most will not understand how few applications fall into category 1 .
Not enough people think of code as essentially custom built machines with many many custom built parts inside it .
If you told them that , they might start understanding why getting the " design documents " is so important " should the machine ever break down " .
Then again , most people are n't imaginative enough to understand why they 'd ever want to change anything in the application , or how the changing software eco-system will eventually obsolete that program designed 10 years ago to run on Windows 98 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the responses here are arguing legalities.
That's nice and all, but most of how business works in the real world doesn't wind up in the court system, but by people just making decisions.
So I think it's valuable to present the perspective of a customer.From my perspective, it MIGHT be acceptable to not get the source code for the work, given one of three possible conditions:1.
I never expect to modify or maintain the application in any way whatsoever during it's lifetime.
(We all know this is relatively unlikely)or2.
I completely trust the contractor to do good work, charge me reasonable competitive rates, and provide some exit strategy should the developer retire, die, etc.or3.
The program is largely of very limited value, and is highly unlikely to ever be of any great value.In all other cases, source code is largely a must.
Imagine a plumber replacing your old steel pipes with copper, but somehow locking all the pipework down so only HE could work on the pipes.
Nobody would stand for that, as pipes are basic infra-structure that survive longer than you or the plumber.
Code doesn't always survive that long..  but sometimes it just sits and works for decades (I know I've written code for the short term I never expected to still be used 7 years later).The case of custom libraries owned by the developer are a special case.
Everyone who's done software development for any length of time has bought 3rd party libraries without source code.
This case is \_mostly\_ the same as that, but with some additional risks involved.
Contractors aren't in the business of selling 3rd party libraries, so it's likely there's:No documentation, or at best poor documentation (why write documentation when you're the only one who uses it?
)The API is poor, and not for general usage.I'd expect the library to be more buggy, since it hasn't gone through testing by multiple different developers trying to do things the author didn't think of.The above all lead towards greater lock-in to the original author.
That's great for the author, but not so great for me, the customer.
If the application didn't meet one of my above three cases I'd likely insist on very good documentation of the functions the contractor used from his custom library.Just for the sake of argument, I'll state that the vast majority of people hiring contractors for software development aren't going to have any clue about any of the above.
If you do try to advise them most will not understand how few applications fall into category 1.
Not enough people think of code as essentially custom built machines with many many custom built parts inside it.
If you told them that, they might start understanding why getting the "design documents" is so important "should the machine ever break down".
Then again, most people aren't imaginative enough to understand why they'd ever want to change anything in the application, or how the changing software eco-system will eventually obsolete that program designed 10 years ago to run on Windows 98.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381032</id>
	<title>Work for Hire</title>
	<author>Sortova</author>
	<datestamp>1267894140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a person who runs an open source company, the first sentence "Why do people think they own code just because they've paid for it?" caught my eye. The reason most companies think they own code is that 99\% of the contracts I read have a "work for hire" clause. This means that as a contractor you sign away the same rights that employees do. You come up with a patentable idea on company time? They own it. You write code? They own it.

Open source presents an interesting problem. Quite often in the same contracts they have clauses against distribution of the work for hire. I spend quite a bit of time lining out those paragraphs before I sign such a contract.

There are no inalienable "developer rights" that need to be asserted. Quite simply this is a case of contract law. If you want to retain the ownership of your code, don't sign a contract that gives it away. Heck, it worked for Bill Gates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a person who runs an open source company , the first sentence " Why do people think they own code just because they 've paid for it ?
" caught my eye .
The reason most companies think they own code is that 99 \ % of the contracts I read have a " work for hire " clause .
This means that as a contractor you sign away the same rights that employees do .
You come up with a patentable idea on company time ?
They own it .
You write code ?
They own it .
Open source presents an interesting problem .
Quite often in the same contracts they have clauses against distribution of the work for hire .
I spend quite a bit of time lining out those paragraphs before I sign such a contract .
There are no inalienable " developer rights " that need to be asserted .
Quite simply this is a case of contract law .
If you want to retain the ownership of your code , do n't sign a contract that gives it away .
Heck , it worked for Bill Gates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a person who runs an open source company, the first sentence "Why do people think they own code just because they've paid for it?
" caught my eye.
The reason most companies think they own code is that 99\% of the contracts I read have a "work for hire" clause.
This means that as a contractor you sign away the same rights that employees do.
You come up with a patentable idea on company time?
They own it.
You write code?
They own it.
Open source presents an interesting problem.
Quite often in the same contracts they have clauses against distribution of the work for hire.
I spend quite a bit of time lining out those paragraphs before I sign such a contract.
There are no inalienable "developer rights" that need to be asserted.
Quite simply this is a case of contract law.
If you want to retain the ownership of your code, don't sign a contract that gives it away.
Heck, it worked for Bill Gates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381194</id>
	<title>Re:False dichotomy of Microsoft/Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267895940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft feeds into this by not releasing the source code to Windows. Windows would be an even stronger (proprietary) product, IMO, if the source code were available.</p></div><p>Of this, you are very wrong. Microsoft DOES make the code for Windows available via its Shared Source program.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared\_source<br>http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft feeds into this by not releasing the source code to Windows .
Windows would be an even stronger ( proprietary ) product , IMO , if the source code were available.Of this , you are very wrong .
Microsoft DOES make the code for Windows available via its Shared Source program.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared \ _sourcehttp : //www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft feeds into this by not releasing the source code to Windows.
Windows would be an even stronger (proprietary) product, IMO, if the source code were available.Of this, you are very wrong.
Microsoft DOES make the code for Windows available via its Shared Source program.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared\_sourcehttp://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380838</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1267892220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>idk when you got married, but 1.5 years ago that was rather easy to find, but was about double or triple the price of the places that were keeping rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>idk when you got married , but 1.5 years ago that was rather easy to find , but was about double or triple the price of the places that were keeping rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>idk when you got married, but 1.5 years ago that was rather easy to find, but was about double or triple the price of the places that were keeping rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381180</id>
	<title>Re:A (very) brief primer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267895820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This post is correct on a number of points, but misleading or incorrect on several important issues.

FIrst, the distinction between an employee (where the employer DOES automatically own work done within the scope of employment) and independent contractor can be convoluted.  The key factor is the rights of the employer to control the manner in which the work is done; employees are told HOW to do the job, contractors are told what results are wanted and THE CONTRACTOR decides how to accomplish that result.  Other factors include the use of tools (and to whom they belong), where the work is done, whether the individual is doing work for others, and how the individual is paid.  What the two parties call the relationship in a contract is not determinative.

Second, even if the individual is an independent contractor and there is a written agreement saying the code is being done as a work for hire, the project must fit within a VERY narrow set of categories, most of which are not applicable to software.  The requirements to even qualify as a work for hire are that it must be specially ordered or commissioned for use as:
- a contribution to a collective work
- as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
- as a translation
- as a supplementary work
- as a compilation
- as an instructional text
- as a test, as answer material for a test, or
- as an atlas.

The only category that I would expect a software project to fall into would be the first one, a "contribution to a collective work" if the contractor is part of a team building a large project and his/her code gets absorbed into the larger body of code.  The other categories seem inapposite to software development.  Therefore, I think it is generally unlikely that an effective work-for-hire agreement can be made for stand-alone code that is intended for actual use (as opposed to being put into a textbook or test.)  I know that software developers sign work for hire agreements all the time (I've seen many of them) but as a legal matter most would probably not stand up to a challenge.

Third, while it is true that a contractor can transfer all or some of his/her rights via a written agreement, and it is true that the author can retake those rights later, it IS NOT automatic.  To the contrary, there are a specific set of steps that MUIST be followed to exercise the right to terminate the transfer.  For a work (other than a work for hire) created since 1978, the author can termination during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the agreement that originally transferred the rights (or thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work if the right transferred was the right to publish), and ending at forty years from the date of the grant.  The author MUST serve advance notice - in writing, signed by all authors or by their agents - AND that written notice must state the effective date of the termination (which has to be within the five-year window), AND the notice must be served not less than two nor more than ten years before the effective date, AND a copy of the notice must be recorded with the US Copyright Office before the effective date of termination.  Miss (or mess up) one of those steps and the termination is void.

That's my $0.02.  Please note that while I am a lawyer (who works extensively in the geek world) the foregoing is not legal advice to anyone and I only give legal advice to persons who have become clients.  If you have questions about a proposed work for hire agreement (or one you've already signed) you should seek the advice of competent counsel.

CK Sandberg
cksandberg@locklaw.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>This post is correct on a number of points , but misleading or incorrect on several important issues .
FIrst , the distinction between an employee ( where the employer DOES automatically own work done within the scope of employment ) and independent contractor can be convoluted .
The key factor is the rights of the employer to control the manner in which the work is done ; employees are told HOW to do the job , contractors are told what results are wanted and THE CONTRACTOR decides how to accomplish that result .
Other factors include the use of tools ( and to whom they belong ) , where the work is done , whether the individual is doing work for others , and how the individual is paid .
What the two parties call the relationship in a contract is not determinative .
Second , even if the individual is an independent contractor and there is a written agreement saying the code is being done as a work for hire , the project must fit within a VERY narrow set of categories , most of which are not applicable to software .
The requirements to even qualify as a work for hire are that it must be specially ordered or commissioned for use as : - a contribution to a collective work - as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work - as a translation - as a supplementary work - as a compilation - as an instructional text - as a test , as answer material for a test , or - as an atlas .
The only category that I would expect a software project to fall into would be the first one , a " contribution to a collective work " if the contractor is part of a team building a large project and his/her code gets absorbed into the larger body of code .
The other categories seem inapposite to software development .
Therefore , I think it is generally unlikely that an effective work-for-hire agreement can be made for stand-alone code that is intended for actual use ( as opposed to being put into a textbook or test .
) I know that software developers sign work for hire agreements all the time ( I 've seen many of them ) but as a legal matter most would probably not stand up to a challenge .
Third , while it is true that a contractor can transfer all or some of his/her rights via a written agreement , and it is true that the author can retake those rights later , it IS NOT automatic .
To the contrary , there are a specific set of steps that MUIST be followed to exercise the right to terminate the transfer .
For a work ( other than a work for hire ) created since 1978 , the author can termination during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the agreement that originally transferred the rights ( or thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work if the right transferred was the right to publish ) , and ending at forty years from the date of the grant .
The author MUST serve advance notice - in writing , signed by all authors or by their agents - AND that written notice must state the effective date of the termination ( which has to be within the five-year window ) , AND the notice must be served not less than two nor more than ten years before the effective date , AND a copy of the notice must be recorded with the US Copyright Office before the effective date of termination .
Miss ( or mess up ) one of those steps and the termination is void .
That 's my $ 0.02 .
Please note that while I am a lawyer ( who works extensively in the geek world ) the foregoing is not legal advice to anyone and I only give legal advice to persons who have become clients .
If you have questions about a proposed work for hire agreement ( or one you 've already signed ) you should seek the advice of competent counsel .
CK Sandberg cksandberg @ locklaw.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post is correct on a number of points, but misleading or incorrect on several important issues.
FIrst, the distinction between an employee (where the employer DOES automatically own work done within the scope of employment) and independent contractor can be convoluted.
The key factor is the rights of the employer to control the manner in which the work is done; employees are told HOW to do the job, contractors are told what results are wanted and THE CONTRACTOR decides how to accomplish that result.
Other factors include the use of tools (and to whom they belong), where the work is done, whether the individual is doing work for others, and how the individual is paid.
What the two parties call the relationship in a contract is not determinative.
Second, even if the individual is an independent contractor and there is a written agreement saying the code is being done as a work for hire, the project must fit within a VERY narrow set of categories, most of which are not applicable to software.
The requirements to even qualify as a work for hire are that it must be specially ordered or commissioned for use as:
- a contribution to a collective work
- as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
- as a translation
- as a supplementary work
- as a compilation
- as an instructional text
- as a test, as answer material for a test, or
- as an atlas.
The only category that I would expect a software project to fall into would be the first one, a "contribution to a collective work" if the contractor is part of a team building a large project and his/her code gets absorbed into the larger body of code.
The other categories seem inapposite to software development.
Therefore, I think it is generally unlikely that an effective work-for-hire agreement can be made for stand-alone code that is intended for actual use (as opposed to being put into a textbook or test.
)  I know that software developers sign work for hire agreements all the time (I've seen many of them) but as a legal matter most would probably not stand up to a challenge.
Third, while it is true that a contractor can transfer all or some of his/her rights via a written agreement, and it is true that the author can retake those rights later, it IS NOT automatic.
To the contrary, there are a specific set of steps that MUIST be followed to exercise the right to terminate the transfer.
For a work (other than a work for hire) created since 1978, the author can termination during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the agreement that originally transferred the rights (or thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work if the right transferred was the right to publish), and ending at forty years from the date of the grant.
The author MUST serve advance notice - in writing, signed by all authors or by their agents - AND that written notice must state the effective date of the termination (which has to be within the five-year window), AND the notice must be served not less than two nor more than ten years before the effective date, AND a copy of the notice must be recorded with the US Copyright Office before the effective date of termination.
Miss (or mess up) one of those steps and the termination is void.
That's my $0.02.
Please note that while I am a lawyer (who works extensively in the geek world) the foregoing is not legal advice to anyone and I only give legal advice to persons who have become clients.
If you have questions about a proposed work for hire agreement (or one you've already signed) you should seek the advice of competent counsel.
CK Sandberg
cksandberg@locklaw.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381126</id>
	<title>Re:False dichotomy of Microsoft/Linux</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1267895160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, dear. You apparently weren't involved in licenses that far back. I'm afraid you need a small history lesson here.</p><p>Different software developers, and companies, had profoundly different policies. It was when UNIX license owners, who'd previously been very open, changed \_policy\_ and started locking up their source code from external developers that people like Richard M. Stallman, and especially Richard M. Stallman, got fed up with having to reverse engineer things in order to fix them. He and people like him created the GNU software license, the so-called "copyleft", to keep the code they wrote and worked with open. That was fundamental to the Linux kernel, which used that license, and to the core pieces of the Linux operating system (with the compiler gcc, core operating system libraries such as glibc, and hundreds of other components).</p><p>But Linux came along well after the division: and the division occurred when UNIX copyright owners became much less willing to share source with developers. I'm old enough to remember this stage of software development personally, and the incredible frustrations of trying to fix a black box, especially a black box that used to be open. And don't blame "Linux" for such confusion. Linux \_components\_ have different licensing schemes, which often do get mislabeled as "open source". But that misnaming hardly came from Linux, it came from the (not very)  "Open Source Foundation".</p><p>Windows history, well: they dare not open the code for a variety of reasons. A major one is their history of intellectual property theft: another is their demonstrated tendency to use secret API's for their own products, and deny their existence or use to others, which has been a repeated factor in the office suite software wars. It might be stronger if they released the source, but Microsoft would be far less profitable. Which path makes sense for their managers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , dear .
You apparently were n't involved in licenses that far back .
I 'm afraid you need a small history lesson here.Different software developers , and companies , had profoundly different policies .
It was when UNIX license owners , who 'd previously been very open , changed \ _policy \ _ and started locking up their source code from external developers that people like Richard M. Stallman , and especially Richard M. Stallman , got fed up with having to reverse engineer things in order to fix them .
He and people like him created the GNU software license , the so-called " copyleft " , to keep the code they wrote and worked with open .
That was fundamental to the Linux kernel , which used that license , and to the core pieces of the Linux operating system ( with the compiler gcc , core operating system libraries such as glibc , and hundreds of other components ) .But Linux came along well after the division : and the division occurred when UNIX copyright owners became much less willing to share source with developers .
I 'm old enough to remember this stage of software development personally , and the incredible frustrations of trying to fix a black box , especially a black box that used to be open .
And do n't blame " Linux " for such confusion .
Linux \ _components \ _ have different licensing schemes , which often do get mislabeled as " open source " .
But that misnaming hardly came from Linux , it came from the ( not very ) " Open Source Foundation " .Windows history , well : they dare not open the code for a variety of reasons .
A major one is their history of intellectual property theft : another is their demonstrated tendency to use secret API 's for their own products , and deny their existence or use to others , which has been a repeated factor in the office suite software wars .
It might be stronger if they released the source , but Microsoft would be far less profitable .
Which path makes sense for their managers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, dear.
You apparently weren't involved in licenses that far back.
I'm afraid you need a small history lesson here.Different software developers, and companies, had profoundly different policies.
It was when UNIX license owners, who'd previously been very open, changed \_policy\_ and started locking up their source code from external developers that people like Richard M. Stallman, and especially Richard M. Stallman, got fed up with having to reverse engineer things in order to fix them.
He and people like him created the GNU software license, the so-called "copyleft", to keep the code they wrote and worked with open.
That was fundamental to the Linux kernel, which used that license, and to the core pieces of the Linux operating system (with the compiler gcc, core operating system libraries such as glibc, and hundreds of other components).But Linux came along well after the division: and the division occurred when UNIX copyright owners became much less willing to share source with developers.
I'm old enough to remember this stage of software development personally, and the incredible frustrations of trying to fix a black box, especially a black box that used to be open.
And don't blame "Linux" for such confusion.
Linux \_components\_ have different licensing schemes, which often do get mislabeled as "open source".
But that misnaming hardly came from Linux, it came from the (not very)  "Open Source Foundation".Windows history, well: they dare not open the code for a variety of reasons.
A major one is their history of intellectual property theft: another is their demonstrated tendency to use secret API's for their own products, and deny their existence or use to others, which has been a repeated factor in the office suite software wars.
It might be stronger if they released the source, but Microsoft would be far less profitable.
Which path makes sense for their managers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382526</id>
	<title>Common sense doesn't appear to be that common</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267907100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't well all just get along and agree on beer-ware transactions in software? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware</p><p>Until then, all that Kevin or many are proving in their debate is their ignorance of reading, understanding, and negotiating agreements...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and why we can't "kill all the lawyers" to whom we delegate by proxy when we refuse to do these simple things.</p><p>BTW Kevin, in some legal jurisdictions, I am allowed by law to to reverse engineer even your compiled code unless we have agreed otherwise. QED</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't well all just get along and agree on beer-ware transactions in software ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeerwareUntil then , all that Kevin or many are proving in their debate is their ignorance of reading , understanding , and negotiating agreements... ...and why we ca n't " kill all the lawyers " to whom we delegate by proxy when we refuse to do these simple things.BTW Kevin , in some legal jurisdictions , I am allowed by law to to reverse engineer even your compiled code unless we have agreed otherwise .
QED</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't well all just get along and agree on beer-ware transactions in software?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeerwareUntil then, all that Kevin or many are proving in their debate is their ignorance of reading, understanding, and negotiating agreements... ...and why we can't "kill all the lawyers" to whom we delegate by proxy when we refuse to do these simple things.BTW Kevin, in some legal jurisdictions, I am allowed by law to to reverse engineer even your compiled code unless we have agreed otherwise.
QED</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380742</id>
	<title>You are equally guilty it appears.</title>
	<author>barfy</author>
	<datestamp>1267891020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Failing to have a clear contract, means that the one buying, may not be getting what they think.  But equally true, is that the seller may be giving up more than they think.</p><p>There are basic principles here.  And that is "work for hire".</p><p>The conflicting stuff, is development of "skills", competition, and squelching a persons ability to make a living.</p><p>Fundamentally, one should see a lawyer about this, these two sentences should keep you google happy long enough to grasp the things that you should expect from your lawyer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Failing to have a clear contract , means that the one buying , may not be getting what they think .
But equally true , is that the seller may be giving up more than they think.There are basic principles here .
And that is " work for hire " .The conflicting stuff , is development of " skills " , competition , and squelching a persons ability to make a living.Fundamentally , one should see a lawyer about this , these two sentences should keep you google happy long enough to grasp the things that you should expect from your lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Failing to have a clear contract, means that the one buying, may not be getting what they think.
But equally true, is that the seller may be giving up more than they think.There are basic principles here.
And that is "work for hire".The conflicting stuff, is development of "skills", competition, and squelching a persons ability to make a living.Fundamentally, one should see a lawyer about this, these two sentences should keep you google happy long enough to grasp the things that you should expect from your lawyer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381902</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>sribe</author>
	<datestamp>1267902900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. If an entire program is being developed as a contract piece, it *might* not qualify as a work for hire...</p></div><p>Replace "might not" with "does not" and your statement would be correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
If an entire program is being developed as a contract piece , it * might * not qualify as a work for hire...Replace " might not " with " does not " and your statement would be correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
If an entire program is being developed as a contract piece, it *might* not qualify as a work for hire...Replace "might not" with "does not" and your statement would be correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380604</id>
	<title>same deal with photography</title>
	<author>viridari</author>
	<datestamp>1267889880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone pays me to take photos &amp; thinks they can make their own prints. But they don't own the photos. I do. Then they get all cranky when they go to Walgreens with the crappy 800 pixel (long side) image I gave them for web use &amp; wonder why one of two things happens:<br>1) their 4x6 print looks like crap<br>2) the store manager won't print watermarked photos without a signed release from the photographer</p><p>I copyright law f'd up in this world right now? Certainly! But right now this is how it is. I do remain open to Something Better but haven't seen it yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone pays me to take photos &amp; thinks they can make their own prints .
But they do n't own the photos .
I do .
Then they get all cranky when they go to Walgreens with the crappy 800 pixel ( long side ) image I gave them for web use &amp; wonder why one of two things happens : 1 ) their 4x6 print looks like crap2 ) the store manager wo n't print watermarked photos without a signed release from the photographerI copyright law f 'd up in this world right now ?
Certainly ! But right now this is how it is .
I do remain open to Something Better but have n't seen it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone pays me to take photos &amp; thinks they can make their own prints.
But they don't own the photos.
I do.
Then they get all cranky when they go to Walgreens with the crappy 800 pixel (long side) image I gave them for web use &amp; wonder why one of two things happens:1) their 4x6 print looks like crap2) the store manager won't print watermarked photos without a signed release from the photographerI copyright law f'd up in this world right now?
Certainly! But right now this is how it is.
I do remain open to Something Better but haven't seen it yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383244</id>
	<title>Re:Whaaaaaaaat?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267868460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this the responsibility of the contractor? If a buyer lacks the proper knowledge or understanding of the legal aspects *they* should consult a laywer prior to purchase.</p><p>If you pay a contractor to provide you with a product, the product is what you get.</p><p>If you want the source code (IP) this should be specified and may incur additional costs. The custom-written source may not be that big a deal, in my experience it has always been provided upon request if not on delivery. But this is not what TFA is about.</p><p>When it comes to generic tools and libraries the contractor has developed outside the scope of the current contract (but which have been used - to keep costs down etc.) you clearly have a license to use them as a part of the product you purchased. However, you did not pay for the development of these libs/tools, so why should you be allowed to use them for further development in-house or using some other contractor?</p><p>I'm sure you contractor will let you license them at a fair price in case you wish to do further development on your own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this the responsibility of the contractor ?
If a buyer lacks the proper knowledge or understanding of the legal aspects * they * should consult a laywer prior to purchase.If you pay a contractor to provide you with a product , the product is what you get.If you want the source code ( IP ) this should be specified and may incur additional costs .
The custom-written source may not be that big a deal , in my experience it has always been provided upon request if not on delivery .
But this is not what TFA is about.When it comes to generic tools and libraries the contractor has developed outside the scope of the current contract ( but which have been used - to keep costs down etc .
) you clearly have a license to use them as a part of the product you purchased .
However , you did not pay for the development of these libs/tools , so why should you be allowed to use them for further development in-house or using some other contractor ? I 'm sure you contractor will let you license them at a fair price in case you wish to do further development on your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this the responsibility of the contractor?
If a buyer lacks the proper knowledge or understanding of the legal aspects *they* should consult a laywer prior to purchase.If you pay a contractor to provide you with a product, the product is what you get.If you want the source code (IP) this should be specified and may incur additional costs.
The custom-written source may not be that big a deal, in my experience it has always been provided upon request if not on delivery.
But this is not what TFA is about.When it comes to generic tools and libraries the contractor has developed outside the scope of the current contract (but which have been used - to keep costs down etc.
) you clearly have a license to use them as a part of the product you purchased.
However, you did not pay for the development of these libs/tools, so why should you be allowed to use them for further development in-house or using some other contractor?I'm sure you contractor will let you license them at a fair price in case you wish to do further development on your own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381676</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>SQLGuru</author>
	<datestamp>1267900680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always spell it out in the side work I do.  In some instances, I've retained the rights to the code in others, I didn't.  If you want to own the code, it will cost you extra (since I then can't resell it), but if you just want to use the end result of the code, you pay regular price.  I also offer the option for you to get a copy of the code but that I own the rights to it.  I give the options mostly to be able to get extra cash, I really could care less about code ownership wrt my clients.  I've not had too many instances where the code I wrote for one client overlapped a lot with that for another (at least not yet).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always spell it out in the side work I do .
In some instances , I 've retained the rights to the code in others , I did n't .
If you want to own the code , it will cost you extra ( since I then ca n't resell it ) , but if you just want to use the end result of the code , you pay regular price .
I also offer the option for you to get a copy of the code but that I own the rights to it .
I give the options mostly to be able to get extra cash , I really could care less about code ownership wrt my clients .
I 've not had too many instances where the code I wrote for one client overlapped a lot with that for another ( at least not yet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always spell it out in the side work I do.
In some instances, I've retained the rights to the code in others, I didn't.
If you want to own the code, it will cost you extra (since I then can't resell it), but if you just want to use the end result of the code, you pay regular price.
I also offer the option for you to get a copy of the code but that I own the rights to it.
I give the options mostly to be able to get extra cash, I really could care less about code ownership wrt my clients.
I've not had too many instances where the code I wrote for one client overlapped a lot with that for another (at least not yet).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384166</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>laughingcoyote</author>
	<datestamp>1267875300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints."
Which you immediately point out doesn't seem to hold true in reality.</p></div></blockquote><p>Dunno about "in reality" when GP was married, but I know of a lot of people annoyed with that, and it apparently has been changing. I'm getting married myself here in a little under 6 months, and one thing we explicitly looked for in a photographer was a full transfer of all rights. I'd say it was about 50/50, the ones who did that as a matter of course vs. those who charged extra for it, and there really wasn't a price differential between the two. So, while it may be conceivable for the photographer to retain all rights, it's apparently caused enough of a loss in business for people to stop it. Certainly lost mine-if I was considering a photographer, and the answer to that question was "We retain all the rights, but you can pay $XXX for them", my response was "Thank you for your time" and an end to the conversation.</p><p>I have high quality printing equipment that I'm more than capable of doing my own reprints on, and will also likely put together a quick website for friends/family to visit and get them from. I'm paying the photographer for skill in photography and the time spent using those skills, not to eternally pay more for stuff I'm quite capable of taking over myself from that point onward.</p><p>Lest anyone think this is entirely offtopic, the same applies to developers-if the customer pays you to do the initial development, and then moves on to doing support themself or having someone else provide it, just make sure you charge enough for the initial development work that it's worth your time even if that happens. If you're charging based on hopes of something in the future, rather than what you've got the contract for right now, well, that's just foolish and of course you'll find yourself in a tough spot. Deal honestly and squarely with your customers, and you'll find many of them are happy to contract for additional work or continue to request you for consulting. Yank them around, and not only will they never consider you again, but there will be someone else they talk to that will never consider you either-even though you'll never know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" When I was married , we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed , and simply did n't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work , and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints .
" Which you immediately point out does n't seem to hold true in reality.Dunno about " in reality " when GP was married , but I know of a lot of people annoyed with that , and it apparently has been changing .
I 'm getting married myself here in a little under 6 months , and one thing we explicitly looked for in a photographer was a full transfer of all rights .
I 'd say it was about 50/50 , the ones who did that as a matter of course vs. those who charged extra for it , and there really was n't a price differential between the two .
So , while it may be conceivable for the photographer to retain all rights , it 's apparently caused enough of a loss in business for people to stop it .
Certainly lost mine-if I was considering a photographer , and the answer to that question was " We retain all the rights , but you can pay $ XXX for them " , my response was " Thank you for your time " and an end to the conversation.I have high quality printing equipment that I 'm more than capable of doing my own reprints on , and will also likely put together a quick website for friends/family to visit and get them from .
I 'm paying the photographer for skill in photography and the time spent using those skills , not to eternally pay more for stuff I 'm quite capable of taking over myself from that point onward.Lest anyone think this is entirely offtopic , the same applies to developers-if the customer pays you to do the initial development , and then moves on to doing support themself or having someone else provide it , just make sure you charge enough for the initial development work that it 's worth your time even if that happens .
If you 're charging based on hopes of something in the future , rather than what you 've got the contract for right now , well , that 's just foolish and of course you 'll find yourself in a tough spot .
Deal honestly and squarely with your customers , and you 'll find many of them are happy to contract for additional work or continue to request you for consulting .
Yank them around , and not only will they never consider you again , but there will be someone else they talk to that will never consider you either-even though you 'll never know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints.
"
Which you immediately point out doesn't seem to hold true in reality.Dunno about "in reality" when GP was married, but I know of a lot of people annoyed with that, and it apparently has been changing.
I'm getting married myself here in a little under 6 months, and one thing we explicitly looked for in a photographer was a full transfer of all rights.
I'd say it was about 50/50, the ones who did that as a matter of course vs. those who charged extra for it, and there really wasn't a price differential between the two.
So, while it may be conceivable for the photographer to retain all rights, it's apparently caused enough of a loss in business for people to stop it.
Certainly lost mine-if I was considering a photographer, and the answer to that question was "We retain all the rights, but you can pay $XXX for them", my response was "Thank you for your time" and an end to the conversation.I have high quality printing equipment that I'm more than capable of doing my own reprints on, and will also likely put together a quick website for friends/family to visit and get them from.
I'm paying the photographer for skill in photography and the time spent using those skills, not to eternally pay more for stuff I'm quite capable of taking over myself from that point onward.Lest anyone think this is entirely offtopic, the same applies to developers-if the customer pays you to do the initial development, and then moves on to doing support themself or having someone else provide it, just make sure you charge enough for the initial development work that it's worth your time even if that happens.
If you're charging based on hopes of something in the future, rather than what you've got the contract for right now, well, that's just foolish and of course you'll find yourself in a tough spot.
Deal honestly and squarely with your customers, and you'll find many of them are happy to contract for additional work or continue to request you for consulting.
Yank them around, and not only will they never consider you again, but there will be someone else they talk to that will never consider you either-even though you'll never know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381496</id>
	<title>CODE CAN NOT BE OWNED.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267898820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s not a physical object. It&rsquo;s information (or an idea). There are different laws in bitspace:<br>If you give the information to nobody, good luck trying to prove it exists at all.<br>If you pass it on, there goes your control over it.<br>Also how can you own something, that can not be taken from you?<br>It just makes no sense to think of in as a physical object.</p><p>The author&rsquo;s right was meant to be a compensation for the creator, because after all, someone deserves something for it. And indeed, in Germany, you can&rsquo;t pass it on. Ever. By law. (Urheberrecht.)<br>Copyright exists as a right for those who <em>copy</em> it. Which made sense in a time when there were media reproduction companies. But it was never meant to protect the original creator. And it still doesn&rsquo;t.</p><p>The thing is: Those laws exist, because people were unable to comprehend the laws of bitspace. And because everything was tied to a physical object, that was no problem.<br>Nowadays we don&rsquo;t have that tie anymore. And that&rsquo;s why we get into trouble.</p><p>Luckily, there is a working business model, that acknowledges reality... including the laws of bitspace.<br>The idea is to completely forget the idea that information would be controllable. And work from that basis.<br>And what you come up with then, is that if you want money from it, you have to ask for it at the moment you first pass it on. And then stop bitching, since you just gave up control over it. If one client can&rsquo;t afford that price (e.g. games), you do it like with an investor. Only that all your clients (the gamers) take that place. Like a &ldquo;If you give me that complete information (e.g. game), I will give you $xx. Signed, $client and $you&rdquo;<br>Which is very similar to taking a loan at a bank, based on a solid business model. Having a lot of clients who signed to pay because of your great trailer videos &amp; co, is really the safest bet a bank can make. And if you fail, neither your bank nor your clients will be hurt.<br>If you succeed, you will take the money, give ONLY your paying clients your work (information), pay your bank, and keep the difference as profits. Rinse and repeat.</p><p>The best thing is: It can coexist with the crappy laws and imaginary business models we have now. It doesn&rsquo;t need any new laws or anything really. You can start using it right now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s not a physical object .
It    s information ( or an idea ) .
There are different laws in bitspace : If you give the information to nobody , good luck trying to prove it exists at all.If you pass it on , there goes your control over it.Also how can you own something , that can not be taken from you ? It just makes no sense to think of in as a physical object.The author    s right was meant to be a compensation for the creator , because after all , someone deserves something for it .
And indeed , in Germany , you can    t pass it on .
Ever. By law .
( Urheberrecht. ) Copyright exists as a right for those who copy it .
Which made sense in a time when there were media reproduction companies .
But it was never meant to protect the original creator .
And it still doesn    t.The thing is : Those laws exist , because people were unable to comprehend the laws of bitspace .
And because everything was tied to a physical object , that was no problem.Nowadays we don    t have that tie anymore .
And that    s why we get into trouble.Luckily , there is a working business model , that acknowledges reality... including the laws of bitspace.The idea is to completely forget the idea that information would be controllable .
And work from that basis.And what you come up with then , is that if you want money from it , you have to ask for it at the moment you first pass it on .
And then stop bitching , since you just gave up control over it .
If one client can    t afford that price ( e.g .
games ) , you do it like with an investor .
Only that all your clients ( the gamers ) take that place .
Like a    If you give me that complete information ( e.g .
game ) , I will give you $ xx .
Signed , $ client and $ you    Which is very similar to taking a loan at a bank , based on a solid business model .
Having a lot of clients who signed to pay because of your great trailer videos &amp; co , is really the safest bet a bank can make .
And if you fail , neither your bank nor your clients will be hurt.If you succeed , you will take the money , give ONLY your paying clients your work ( information ) , pay your bank , and keep the difference as profits .
Rinse and repeat.The best thing is : It can coexist with the crappy laws and imaginary business models we have now .
It doesn    t need any new laws or anything really .
You can start using it right now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s not a physical object.
It’s information (or an idea).
There are different laws in bitspace:If you give the information to nobody, good luck trying to prove it exists at all.If you pass it on, there goes your control over it.Also how can you own something, that can not be taken from you?It just makes no sense to think of in as a physical object.The author’s right was meant to be a compensation for the creator, because after all, someone deserves something for it.
And indeed, in Germany, you can’t pass it on.
Ever. By law.
(Urheberrecht.)Copyright exists as a right for those who copy it.
Which made sense in a time when there were media reproduction companies.
But it was never meant to protect the original creator.
And it still doesn’t.The thing is: Those laws exist, because people were unable to comprehend the laws of bitspace.
And because everything was tied to a physical object, that was no problem.Nowadays we don’t have that tie anymore.
And that’s why we get into trouble.Luckily, there is a working business model, that acknowledges reality... including the laws of bitspace.The idea is to completely forget the idea that information would be controllable.
And work from that basis.And what you come up with then, is that if you want money from it, you have to ask for it at the moment you first pass it on.
And then stop bitching, since you just gave up control over it.
If one client can’t afford that price (e.g.
games), you do it like with an investor.
Only that all your clients (the gamers) take that place.
Like a “If you give me that complete information (e.g.
game), I will give you $xx.
Signed, $client and $you”Which is very similar to taking a loan at a bank, based on a solid business model.
Having a lot of clients who signed to pay because of your great trailer videos &amp; co, is really the safest bet a bank can make.
And if you fail, neither your bank nor your clients will be hurt.If you succeed, you will take the money, give ONLY your paying clients your work (information), pay your bank, and keep the difference as profits.
Rinse and repeat.The best thing is: It can coexist with the crappy laws and imaginary business models we have now.
It doesn’t need any new laws or anything really.
You can start using it right now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31385286</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267884840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are absolutely wrong.  If a contract employee works in what we call "staff augmentation," that is to say, they work like an employee but are paid as a contractor, then everything they produce is a work for hire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are absolutely wrong .
If a contract employee works in what we call " staff augmentation , " that is to say , they work like an employee but are paid as a contractor , then everything they produce is a work for hire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are absolutely wrong.
If a contract employee works in what we call "staff augmentation," that is to say, they work like an employee but are paid as a contractor, then everything they produce is a work for hire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381750</id>
	<title>Not necessarily true</title>
	<author>novastar123</author>
	<datestamp>1267901280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all depends on how the programmer does business, and what the terms of the job are.</p><p>If I buy a license for Windows 7, or vBulletin, I know I do not own the code to those. Sure, in one of them, windows, I have little/no access to the code, but in vBulletin, I have complete<br>access to the code. Now based on the terms of the license agreement I agreed to when I purchased it, I am free to modify that code however I want, as long as I abide by the terms of the license, ie only running one instance of the software, and whatever other restrictions they have. This does not mean I own the code, other than any code I added to it while customizing it, nor does it mean I can sell it as my own.</p><p>Now, when it comes to freelance coding and the like, it depends on your agreement.<br>As a freelance coder myself, granted I'm just small time compared to some, if I write a piece of software, and have it up for sale, any buyers get a limited license to use it.<br>But if I am engaged to do a custom job, I generally turn over all rights to the source code when I am done, and license any of my custom libraries to them. When I do it this way though,<br>they only get a limited maintenance agreement, such as only one installation, and I will only fix bugs that were in the original code. If the code has been modified at all, I will not touch it.<br>If they want a more comprehensive maintenance agreement, they can license the code from me, and I will be happy to maintain it, as long as I am the only coder working on it.</p><p>I absolutely loathe it when another coder screws up code I have written, then the original customer expects me to fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all depends on how the programmer does business , and what the terms of the job are.If I buy a license for Windows 7 , or vBulletin , I know I do not own the code to those .
Sure , in one of them , windows , I have little/no access to the code , but in vBulletin , I have completeaccess to the code .
Now based on the terms of the license agreement I agreed to when I purchased it , I am free to modify that code however I want , as long as I abide by the terms of the license , ie only running one instance of the software , and whatever other restrictions they have .
This does not mean I own the code , other than any code I added to it while customizing it , nor does it mean I can sell it as my own.Now , when it comes to freelance coding and the like , it depends on your agreement.As a freelance coder myself , granted I 'm just small time compared to some , if I write a piece of software , and have it up for sale , any buyers get a limited license to use it.But if I am engaged to do a custom job , I generally turn over all rights to the source code when I am done , and license any of my custom libraries to them .
When I do it this way though,they only get a limited maintenance agreement , such as only one installation , and I will only fix bugs that were in the original code .
If the code has been modified at all , I will not touch it.If they want a more comprehensive maintenance agreement , they can license the code from me , and I will be happy to maintain it , as long as I am the only coder working on it.I absolutely loathe it when another coder screws up code I have written , then the original customer expects me to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all depends on how the programmer does business, and what the terms of the job are.If I buy a license for Windows 7, or vBulletin, I know I do not own the code to those.
Sure, in one of them, windows, I have little/no access to the code, but in vBulletin, I have completeaccess to the code.
Now based on the terms of the license agreement I agreed to when I purchased it, I am free to modify that code however I want, as long as I abide by the terms of the license, ie only running one instance of the software, and whatever other restrictions they have.
This does not mean I own the code, other than any code I added to it while customizing it, nor does it mean I can sell it as my own.Now, when it comes to freelance coding and the like, it depends on your agreement.As a freelance coder myself, granted I'm just small time compared to some, if I write a piece of software, and have it up for sale, any buyers get a limited license to use it.But if I am engaged to do a custom job, I generally turn over all rights to the source code when I am done, and license any of my custom libraries to them.
When I do it this way though,they only get a limited maintenance agreement, such as only one installation, and I will only fix bugs that were in the original code.
If the code has been modified at all, I will not touch it.If they want a more comprehensive maintenance agreement, they can license the code from me, and I will be happy to maintain it, as long as I am the only coder working on it.I absolutely loathe it when another coder screws up code I have written, then the original customer expects me to fix it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382748</id>
	<title>Re:examples fail</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1267908480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I pay someone to write a new bible, the default position is that the publisher owns it.</p></div><p>Let's change the word "bible" to "book" so as to avoid having to deal with the extra confusion over what, if any, rights are retained by the divine inspirer of the work in question.</p><p>So, if you pay someone to write a new book, is that not just two parties to the transaction?  How did the publisher insert himself into the middle of things?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I pay someone to write a new bible , the default position is that the publisher owns it.Let 's change the word " bible " to " book " so as to avoid having to deal with the extra confusion over what , if any , rights are retained by the divine inspirer of the work in question.So , if you pay someone to write a new book , is that not just two parties to the transaction ?
How did the publisher insert himself into the middle of things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I pay someone to write a new bible, the default position is that the publisher owns it.Let's change the word "bible" to "book" so as to avoid having to deal with the extra confusion over what, if any, rights are retained by the divine inspirer of the work in question.So, if you pay someone to write a new book, is that not just two parties to the transaction?
How did the publisher insert himself into the middle of things?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381548</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1267899240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Wedding photography has a very well established business plan where the base fee covers the basic costs of the photographer, and the prints supply the profit.<br></i><br>The modern world has since stepped in, and this business model is very likely going the way of the dodo.  It worked when "copying" photographs was difficult, expensive, and uncommon.  The modern age of digital photography has changed all three of those, so customers have entirely different expectations now.</p><p><i><br>As it is not exactly an uncompetitive industry, and you don't see many wedding photogs turning up in Porsches, i'd say the pricing and model were pretty fair.<br></i><br>Heh.  This kind of reasoning just has to make me laugh.  It's fair because photographers don't drive Porshes?  You've got a lot to learn about business and economics.  It was "fair" because the photographers could get away with it.  Now they can't.  Fair I won't get into since that's far to value driven of a word to have any meaninful conversation about.  It's obvious to me that the old business model isn't sustainable.</p><p><i><br>You *could* argue it is an outdated model now, with the rise of electronic media, but most couples still want prints, and the same problem actually still remains - giving out jpg's and letting people print at home or from a cheap online outlet is going to result in exactly the same quality/reputation problem as in the film days.<br></i><br>What a lot of malarkey.  This is exactly the case of the photographers seeing the whole world as a set of photographers sitting around worrying about print quality.  The truth is people buying prints aren't experts at print quality.  The LAST thing they think of when looking at a photograph is the photographer who took the picture.  It's also an after-the-fact justification for a business practice that benefits photographers.  The REAL deal is the business practice, the print quality thing is just a mask to hide that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wedding photography has a very well established business plan where the base fee covers the basic costs of the photographer , and the prints supply the profit.The modern world has since stepped in , and this business model is very likely going the way of the dodo .
It worked when " copying " photographs was difficult , expensive , and uncommon .
The modern age of digital photography has changed all three of those , so customers have entirely different expectations now.As it is not exactly an uncompetitive industry , and you do n't see many wedding photogs turning up in Porsches , i 'd say the pricing and model were pretty fair.Heh .
This kind of reasoning just has to make me laugh .
It 's fair because photographers do n't drive Porshes ?
You 've got a lot to learn about business and economics .
It was " fair " because the photographers could get away with it .
Now they ca n't .
Fair I wo n't get into since that 's far to value driven of a word to have any meaninful conversation about .
It 's obvious to me that the old business model is n't sustainable.You * could * argue it is an outdated model now , with the rise of electronic media , but most couples still want prints , and the same problem actually still remains - giving out jpg 's and letting people print at home or from a cheap online outlet is going to result in exactly the same quality/reputation problem as in the film days.What a lot of malarkey .
This is exactly the case of the photographers seeing the whole world as a set of photographers sitting around worrying about print quality .
The truth is people buying prints are n't experts at print quality .
The LAST thing they think of when looking at a photograph is the photographer who took the picture .
It 's also an after-the-fact justification for a business practice that benefits photographers .
The REAL deal is the business practice , the print quality thing is just a mask to hide that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wedding photography has a very well established business plan where the base fee covers the basic costs of the photographer, and the prints supply the profit.The modern world has since stepped in, and this business model is very likely going the way of the dodo.
It worked when "copying" photographs was difficult, expensive, and uncommon.
The modern age of digital photography has changed all three of those, so customers have entirely different expectations now.As it is not exactly an uncompetitive industry, and you don't see many wedding photogs turning up in Porsches, i'd say the pricing and model were pretty fair.Heh.
This kind of reasoning just has to make me laugh.
It's fair because photographers don't drive Porshes?
You've got a lot to learn about business and economics.
It was "fair" because the photographers could get away with it.
Now they can't.
Fair I won't get into since that's far to value driven of a word to have any meaninful conversation about.
It's obvious to me that the old business model isn't sustainable.You *could* argue it is an outdated model now, with the rise of electronic media, but most couples still want prints, and the same problem actually still remains - giving out jpg's and letting people print at home or from a cheap online outlet is going to result in exactly the same quality/reputation problem as in the film days.What a lot of malarkey.
This is exactly the case of the photographers seeing the whole world as a set of photographers sitting around worrying about print quality.
The truth is people buying prints aren't experts at print quality.
The LAST thing they think of when looking at a photograph is the photographer who took the picture.
It's also an after-the-fact justification for a business practice that benefits photographers.
The REAL deal is the business practice, the print quality thing is just a mask to hide that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381624</id>
	<title>The Issue at Hand</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1267900080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the rant posing as an article:<blockquote><div><p>"You might ask why I didn't make a contract with this client in the first place. It's because I've found, over the years, that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved."
</p><p>
"This particular client needed a working application in three weeks and there was simply no time to mess around with legal niceties - I protected my company by insisting on a 50\% upfront payment, and on installing the software on our own server. Since then we've implemented several upgrades, including adding a sophisticated PDF export function. "</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
In a rush to get the job, the author's company agreed to develop and deliver something to a client without a written contract defining who owns what in the end.  Once the work was done, the question of ownership came up.  IANAL but I would think that without a contract the law of the land would prevail.  In the US the work would probably include the application and if that means the source code also, then so be it.
</p><blockquote><div><p>However, web applications by their very nature are far more complicated to nail down in contract form, and the pragmatic requirements of running a business sometimes mean we've gone without written contracts.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
If the legal niceties of web applications are complicated when there is a written contract, why is this guy surprised when they are even more so without one?</p><blockquote><div><p>Developing HTML websites is a standardised(sic) process and it's easy enough to find form contracts online to cover both development and hosting.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I would think that this is a key point.  These are distinct agreements and should be covered by distinct contracts, implied or otherwise.  Just because they are handled by the same company in this case doesn't (or shouldn't) tie them together.  When the application is completed, the developer delivers it to the client and that part of the deal is done.  To throw in a US related car analogy(YMMV), in the US Ford is not allowed to contractually obligate you to buy "Ford gasoline" only as a part of your purchase of the car.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the rant posing as an article : " You might ask why I did n't make a contract with this client in the first place .
It 's because I 've found , over the years , that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved .
" " This particular client needed a working application in three weeks and there was simply no time to mess around with legal niceties - I protected my company by insisting on a 50 \ % upfront payment , and on installing the software on our own server .
Since then we 've implemented several upgrades , including adding a sophisticated PDF export function .
" In a rush to get the job , the author 's company agreed to develop and deliver something to a client without a written contract defining who owns what in the end .
Once the work was done , the question of ownership came up .
IANAL but I would think that without a contract the law of the land would prevail .
In the US the work would probably include the application and if that means the source code also , then so be it .
However , web applications by their very nature are far more complicated to nail down in contract form , and the pragmatic requirements of running a business sometimes mean we 've gone without written contracts .
If the legal niceties of web applications are complicated when there is a written contract , why is this guy surprised when they are even more so without one ? Developing HTML websites is a standardised ( sic ) process and it 's easy enough to find form contracts online to cover both development and hosting .
I would think that this is a key point .
These are distinct agreements and should be covered by distinct contracts , implied or otherwise .
Just because they are handled by the same company in this case does n't ( or should n't ) tie them together .
When the application is completed , the developer delivers it to the client and that part of the deal is done .
To throw in a US related car analogy ( YMMV ) , in the US Ford is not allowed to contractually obligate you to buy " Ford gasoline " only as a part of your purchase of the car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the rant posing as an article:"You might ask why I didn't make a contract with this client in the first place.
It's because I've found, over the years, that insisting on a contract before development starts will result either in a delayed start or even a project being shelved.
"

"This particular client needed a working application in three weeks and there was simply no time to mess around with legal niceties - I protected my company by insisting on a 50\% upfront payment, and on installing the software on our own server.
Since then we've implemented several upgrades, including adding a sophisticated PDF export function.
"

In a rush to get the job, the author's company agreed to develop and deliver something to a client without a written contract defining who owns what in the end.
Once the work was done, the question of ownership came up.
IANAL but I would think that without a contract the law of the land would prevail.
In the US the work would probably include the application and if that means the source code also, then so be it.
However, web applications by their very nature are far more complicated to nail down in contract form, and the pragmatic requirements of running a business sometimes mean we've gone without written contracts.
If the legal niceties of web applications are complicated when there is a written contract, why is this guy surprised when they are even more so without one?Developing HTML websites is a standardised(sic) process and it's easy enough to find form contracts online to cover both development and hosting.
I would think that this is a key point.
These are distinct agreements and should be covered by distinct contracts, implied or otherwise.
Just because they are handled by the same company in this case doesn't (or shouldn't) tie them together.
When the application is completed, the developer delivers it to the client and that part of the deal is done.
To throw in a US related car analogy(YMMV), in the US Ford is not allowed to contractually obligate you to buy "Ford gasoline" only as a part of your purchase of the car.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381048</id>
	<title>Could people please stop posting misinformation?</title>
	<author>sribe</author>
	<datestamp>1267894320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> But, put simply, code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid, unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership (and even then it's far from clear-cut).</p></div><p>The gist of that is right. But it could use a couple of clarifications. The developer usually owns the copyright unless the contract explicitly transfers the copyright to the client. If that's the intent, but the contract just specifies transfer of full ownership, then it's not clear-cut because you have a poor contract that does not correctly specify what it needed to in order to legally satisfy the intent of the parties. If it actually transfers the copyright, then it is indeed clear-cut.</p><p>Now, the exception to the "developer generally owns it" rule, is when instead of developing a product, the developer is contracted to work on a module that will be incorporated into a larger program. Obviously, there's still room for argument in some cases as to whether the work produced could stand on its own or not, but in many cases it will be clear whether the product stands on its own or is a module of a larger work.</p><p>Also, I'd like to address an earlier assertion that it depends on your local and state laws. No it most certainly does not. Copyright is the exclusive jurisdiction of federal law and no state or local law can override or amend it.</p><p>Finally, for all the people who want to argue along the lines of:</p><ul> <li>"If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work."</li><li>"There's a practical presumption in law that if you pay for something and it is delivered, you own it"</li><li>"If the contract does not stipulate otherwise, then the client owns the work-product."</li></ul><p>Before you put any more effort into defending your incorrect assertions please at least let me refer you to information provided by the copyright office. Firstly from the <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html" title="copyright.gov">FAQ</a> [copyright.gov] on definitions:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle; the exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned in <b>certain specified circumstances</b>. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer, or commissioning party, is considered to be the author.</p> </div><p>Please note the "certain specified circumstances" as that is what many people seem to miss. Those specified circumstances are the ones specified in the law, not the ones that you or client think or wish they ought to be, and they are spelled out and discussed <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf" title="copyright.gov">here</a> [copyright.gov]. Seriously, it would be flat-out silly to further argue this point without reading that document.</p><p>Finally, I guess I should point out that I'm not a lawyer. Although the misunderstanding of the law put forth in other comments here is so extreme, they make me like a judge by comparison<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) Especially the (possibly misquote of course) lawyer who apparently led someone to believe that NY has its own version of copyright law. Sheesh. And I bring that up deliberately, because I've seen non-specialist lawyers before give incorrect advice on this subject. <b>Do not</b> ask these questions of a general business attorney--use an attorney who specializes in copyright.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , put simply , code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid , unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership ( and even then it 's far from clear-cut ) .The gist of that is right .
But it could use a couple of clarifications .
The developer usually owns the copyright unless the contract explicitly transfers the copyright to the client .
If that 's the intent , but the contract just specifies transfer of full ownership , then it 's not clear-cut because you have a poor contract that does not correctly specify what it needed to in order to legally satisfy the intent of the parties .
If it actually transfers the copyright , then it is indeed clear-cut.Now , the exception to the " developer generally owns it " rule , is when instead of developing a product , the developer is contracted to work on a module that will be incorporated into a larger program .
Obviously , there 's still room for argument in some cases as to whether the work produced could stand on its own or not , but in many cases it will be clear whether the product stands on its own or is a module of a larger work.Also , I 'd like to address an earlier assertion that it depends on your local and state laws .
No it most certainly does not .
Copyright is the exclusive jurisdiction of federal law and no state or local law can override or amend it.Finally , for all the people who want to argue along the lines of : " If someone pays you to perform work , they own all rights to that work .
" " There 's a practical presumption in law that if you pay for something and it is delivered , you own it " " If the contract does not stipulate otherwise , then the client owns the work-product .
" Before you put any more effort into defending your incorrect assertions please at least let me refer you to information provided by the copyright office .
Firstly from the FAQ [ copyright.gov ] on definitions : Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author , there is an exception to that principle ; the exception is a work made for hire , which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment ; or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances .
When a work qualifies as a work made for hire , the employer , or commissioning party , is considered to be the author .
Please note the " certain specified circumstances " as that is what many people seem to miss .
Those specified circumstances are the ones specified in the law , not the ones that you or client think or wish they ought to be , and they are spelled out and discussed here [ copyright.gov ] .
Seriously , it would be flat-out silly to further argue this point without reading that document.Finally , I guess I should point out that I 'm not a lawyer .
Although the misunderstanding of the law put forth in other comments here is so extreme , they make me like a judge by comparison ; - ) Especially the ( possibly misquote of course ) lawyer who apparently led someone to believe that NY has its own version of copyright law .
Sheesh. And I bring that up deliberately , because I 've seen non-specialist lawyers before give incorrect advice on this subject .
Do not ask these questions of a general business attorney--use an attorney who specializes in copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But, put simply, code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid, unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership (and even then it's far from clear-cut).The gist of that is right.
But it could use a couple of clarifications.
The developer usually owns the copyright unless the contract explicitly transfers the copyright to the client.
If that's the intent, but the contract just specifies transfer of full ownership, then it's not clear-cut because you have a poor contract that does not correctly specify what it needed to in order to legally satisfy the intent of the parties.
If it actually transfers the copyright, then it is indeed clear-cut.Now, the exception to the "developer generally owns it" rule, is when instead of developing a product, the developer is contracted to work on a module that will be incorporated into a larger program.
Obviously, there's still room for argument in some cases as to whether the work produced could stand on its own or not, but in many cases it will be clear whether the product stands on its own or is a module of a larger work.Also, I'd like to address an earlier assertion that it depends on your local and state laws.
No it most certainly does not.
Copyright is the exclusive jurisdiction of federal law and no state or local law can override or amend it.Finally, for all the people who want to argue along the lines of: "If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work.
""There's a practical presumption in law that if you pay for something and it is delivered, you own it""If the contract does not stipulate otherwise, then the client owns the work-product.
"Before you put any more effort into defending your incorrect assertions please at least let me refer you to information provided by the copyright office.
Firstly from the FAQ [copyright.gov] on definitions:Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle; the exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances.
When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer, or commissioning party, is considered to be the author.
Please note the "certain specified circumstances" as that is what many people seem to miss.
Those specified circumstances are the ones specified in the law, not the ones that you or client think or wish they ought to be, and they are spelled out and discussed here [copyright.gov].
Seriously, it would be flat-out silly to further argue this point without reading that document.Finally, I guess I should point out that I'm not a lawyer.
Although the misunderstanding of the law put forth in other comments here is so extreme, they make me like a judge by comparison ;-) Especially the (possibly misquote of course) lawyer who apparently led someone to believe that NY has its own version of copyright law.
Sheesh. And I bring that up deliberately, because I've seen non-specialist lawyers before give incorrect advice on this subject.
Do not ask these questions of a general business attorney--use an attorney who specializes in copyright.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380656</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1267890360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work."<br>Fine assertion...<br> <br>"When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints."<br>Which you immediately point out doesn't seem to hold true in reality.<br> <br>Would it have killed you to use 'should' or some other qualifier? Stating opinion as fact is lame enough, giving evidence to disprove yourself in the next line is just sad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If someone pays you to perform work , they own all rights to that work .
" Fine assertion... " When I was married , we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed , and simply did n't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work , and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints .
" Which you immediately point out does n't seem to hold true in reality .
Would it have killed you to use 'should ' or some other qualifier ?
Stating opinion as fact is lame enough , giving evidence to disprove yourself in the next line is just sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work.
"Fine assertion... "When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints.
"Which you immediately point out doesn't seem to hold true in reality.
Would it have killed you to use 'should' or some other qualifier?
Stating opinion as fact is lame enough, giving evidence to disprove yourself in the next line is just sad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381456</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Grimbleton</author>
	<datestamp>1267898400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My dentist would likely hand them over but remind me to bring them back every time for comparisons... and then rant and rave at me if I forgot them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My dentist would likely hand them over but remind me to bring them back every time for comparisons... and then rant and rave at me if I forgot them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My dentist would likely hand them over but remind me to bring them back every time for comparisons... and then rant and rave at me if I forgot them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381102</id>
	<title>The real question is</title>
	<author>Alanonfire</author>
	<datestamp>1267894800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can you own something that doesn't really exist?  Since computer code is essentially electricity and magnetism, do you own both of those as well?  How much of it can you own?

Owning an abstraction is a pretty impressive feat by any party.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you own something that does n't really exist ?
Since computer code is essentially electricity and magnetism , do you own both of those as well ?
How much of it can you own ?
Owning an abstraction is a pretty impressive feat by any party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you own something that doesn't really exist?
Since computer code is essentially electricity and magnetism, do you own both of those as well?
How much of it can you own?
Owning an abstraction is a pretty impressive feat by any party.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381352</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1267897620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a programmer I own all the of the code I write until I sign away that right.</p></div><p>That depends - do you own your own company where you write code first and then look for people who want to purchase it?  If that's true, then you own the code.  If they come to you and pay you to write code for them, then they own it because they paid for the entire development of the code.</p><p>There's a big difference between having and idea and putting work into creating it and THEN going out and selling it and having someone else come up with an idea and pay you to do the grunt work of manufacturing it.  I suppose in your world, the people working in Ford's factories own all of the cars and the designs to the cars just because they did the grunt work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a programmer I own all the of the code I write until I sign away that right.That depends - do you own your own company where you write code first and then look for people who want to purchase it ?
If that 's true , then you own the code .
If they come to you and pay you to write code for them , then they own it because they paid for the entire development of the code.There 's a big difference between having and idea and putting work into creating it and THEN going out and selling it and having someone else come up with an idea and pay you to do the grunt work of manufacturing it .
I suppose in your world , the people working in Ford 's factories own all of the cars and the designs to the cars just because they did the grunt work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a programmer I own all the of the code I write until I sign away that right.That depends - do you own your own company where you write code first and then look for people who want to purchase it?
If that's true, then you own the code.
If they come to you and pay you to write code for them, then they own it because they paid for the entire development of the code.There's a big difference between having and idea and putting work into creating it and THEN going out and selling it and having someone else come up with an idea and pay you to do the grunt work of manufacturing it.
I suppose in your world, the people working in Ford's factories own all of the cars and the designs to the cars just because they did the grunt work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380902</id>
	<title>Yuo faiL 1t.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267892880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>just yet, but I'm give BSD credit turd-suckingly SLASHDOT'S offe8ded some notorious Ope8BSD the above is far NIGGER ASSOCIATION</htmltext>
<tokenext>just yet , but I 'm give BSD credit turd-suckingly SLASHDOT 'S offe8ded some notorious Ope8BSD the above is far NIGGER ASSOCIATION</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just yet, but I'm give BSD credit turd-suckingly SLASHDOT'S offe8ded some notorious Ope8BSD the above is far NIGGER ASSOCIATION</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382968</id>
	<title>Re:Whaaaaaaaat?</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1267866720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but of course if you were to remodel and use that plumbing again in a derivative work you would have to pay him again for that use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but of course if you were to remodel and use that plumbing again in a derivative work you would have to pay him again for that use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but of course if you were to remodel and use that plumbing again in a derivative work you would have to pay him again for that use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31398956</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1268048400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Does the builder or architect own my house? No"</p><p>Well, it depends if you bought it from him or simply rent it from him.</p><p>That's really the problem here, most companies have no idea whether they bought or rented, they just assume they bought when the developer assumed they were renting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Does the builder or architect own my house ?
No " Well , it depends if you bought it from him or simply rent it from him.That 's really the problem here , most companies have no idea whether they bought or rented , they just assume they bought when the developer assumed they were renting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Does the builder or architect own my house?
No"Well, it depends if you bought it from him or simply rent it from him.That's really the problem here, most companies have no idea whether they bought or rented, they just assume they bought when the developer assumed they were renting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381362</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267897680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is changing.  3 years ago when I hired a wedding photographer it was about a 50/50 split between photographers that kept control over the photos, and photographers that handed *most* rights to the customer.  I have a DVD of the full-quality photos.  Any we had printed are photoshopped, the others are just the originals.  We can print as many as we want, so long as we don't sell them for profit.  We can post online so long as we credit our photographer.  They really can't stop someone from making a high-quality copy of a photograph with a $200 all-in-one printer, so why not make it convenient?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is changing .
3 years ago when I hired a wedding photographer it was about a 50/50 split between photographers that kept control over the photos , and photographers that handed * most * rights to the customer .
I have a DVD of the full-quality photos .
Any we had printed are photoshopped , the others are just the originals .
We can print as many as we want , so long as we do n't sell them for profit .
We can post online so long as we credit our photographer .
They really ca n't stop someone from making a high-quality copy of a photograph with a $ 200 all-in-one printer , so why not make it convenient ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is changing.
3 years ago when I hired a wedding photographer it was about a 50/50 split between photographers that kept control over the photos, and photographers that handed *most* rights to the customer.
I have a DVD of the full-quality photos.
Any we had printed are photoshopped, the others are just the originals.
We can print as many as we want, so long as we don't sell them for profit.
We can post online so long as we credit our photographer.
They really can't stop someone from making a high-quality copy of a photograph with a $200 all-in-one printer, so why not make it convenient?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381566</id>
	<title>WFH WTF</title>
	<author>ratboy666</author>
	<datestamp>1267899360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Put simply, code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid, unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership (even then it's far from clear-cut)."</p><p>A "work made for hire" is-- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. (17 U.S.C.  101)</p><p>And a "work for hire" is considered to be owned by the employer (as author).</p><p>So, when engaging people to write code, simply include: "This is to be considered a work made for hire" in the contract.</p><p>How confusing is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Put simply , code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid , unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership ( even then it 's far from clear-cut ) .
" A " work made for hire " is-- ( 1 ) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment ; or ( 2 ) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work , as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work , as a translation , as a supplementary work , as a compilation , as an instructional text , as a test , as answer material for a test , or as an atlas , if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire .
( 17 U.S.C .
101 ) And a " work for hire " is considered to be owned by the employer ( as author ) .So , when engaging people to write code , simply include : " This is to be considered a work made for hire " in the contract.How confusing is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Put simply, code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid, unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership (even then it's far from clear-cut).
"A "work made for hire" is-- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
(17 U.S.C.
101)And a "work for hire" is considered to be owned by the employer (as author).So, when engaging people to write code, simply include: "This is to be considered a work made for hire" in the contract.How confusing is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381190</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267895940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He might not even own the design, if the design was your idea (=your IP) and he just executed the structural analysis calculation to make the whole deal compatible with building codes. But yes, it can be a big issue and a matter you have to take to court. Not to mention that it will certainly depend on your country's IP laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He might not even own the design , if the design was your idea ( = your IP ) and he just executed the structural analysis calculation to make the whole deal compatible with building codes .
But yes , it can be a big issue and a matter you have to take to court .
Not to mention that it will certainly depend on your country 's IP laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He might not even own the design, if the design was your idea (=your IP) and he just executed the structural analysis calculation to make the whole deal compatible with building codes.
But yes, it can be a big issue and a matter you have to take to court.
Not to mention that it will certainly depend on your country's IP laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383416</id>
	<title>Ayn Rand Reflux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267869720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>       We've seen this line before in Rand's novels expounding her silly beliefs. The notion that an architect can blow up a building because he does not agree with what the owner has done with the design leaps to mind. These days we consider people who blow up buildings to be terrorists unlike Rand who considered them a hero of capitalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've seen this line before in Rand 's novels expounding her silly beliefs .
The notion that an architect can blow up a building because he does not agree with what the owner has done with the design leaps to mind .
These days we consider people who blow up buildings to be terrorists unlike Rand who considered them a hero of capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       We've seen this line before in Rand's novels expounding her silly beliefs.
The notion that an architect can blow up a building because he does not agree with what the owner has done with the design leaps to mind.
These days we consider people who blow up buildings to be terrorists unlike Rand who considered them a hero of capitalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31421524</id>
	<title>Re:Explanations!</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1268141640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mine is quite similar.  And I also offer to alternately quote the project the other way, writing all of my toolkits over for the client.  They never want that, but it's an exercise in understanding what they want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mine is quite similar .
And I also offer to alternately quote the project the other way , writing all of my toolkits over for the client .
They never want that , but it 's an exercise in understanding what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mine is quite similar.
And I also offer to alternately quote the project the other way, writing all of my toolkits over for the client.
They never want that, but it's an exercise in understanding what they want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384544</id>
	<title>Re:Slippery slopes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267878780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think that anybody feels that because they buy software they own rights to the source code, to edit code and distribute it, etc.</p></div><p>Some of us think that the world would be a better place if we all did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that anybody feels that because they buy software they own rights to the source code , to edit code and distribute it , etc.Some of us think that the world would be a better place if we all did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that anybody feels that because they buy software they own rights to the source code, to edit code and distribute it, etc.Some of us think that the world would be a better place if we all did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381926</id>
	<title>Work For Hire</title>
	<author>sohp</author>
	<datestamp>1267903020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newsflash: Ancient work-for-hire rules that have been fought over by writers and photographers for decades hit the software development world. Film at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newsflash : Ancient work-for-hire rules that have been fought over by writers and photographers for decades hit the software development world .
Film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newsflash: Ancient work-for-hire rules that have been fought over by writers and photographers for decades hit the software development world.
Film at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382478</id>
	<title>rights to use vs right to limit your rights to use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267906860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when i buy a cd i don't expect the \_exclusive\_ rights on the music on it.</p><p>that's the main difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when i buy a cd i do n't expect the \ _exclusive \ _ rights on the music on it.that 's the main difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when i buy a cd i don't expect the \_exclusive\_ rights on the music on it.that's the main difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31385102</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267883700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is what is wrong about this entire article: If you pay for Code, you won it! If you pay for development, then you don't necessarily own the code. That's two entirely different things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is what is wrong about this entire article : If you pay for Code , you won it !
If you pay for development , then you do n't necessarily own the code .
That 's two entirely different things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is what is wrong about this entire article: If you pay for Code, you won it!
If you pay for development, then you don't necessarily own the code.
That's two entirely different things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382070</id>
	<title>Re:Give them license to modify the code</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1267904400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was expecting the article to give some hands on experience on how to justify to paying customers that sharing of code goes both ways. Instead the author explains how he justifies to customers that he is not sharing his code with anybody. I bet as a software developer he would never agree to pay for development under these conditions himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was expecting the article to give some hands on experience on how to justify to paying customers that sharing of code goes both ways .
Instead the author explains how he justifies to customers that he is not sharing his code with anybody .
I bet as a software developer he would never agree to pay for development under these conditions himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was expecting the article to give some hands on experience on how to justify to paying customers that sharing of code goes both ways.
Instead the author explains how he justifies to customers that he is not sharing his code with anybody.
I bet as a software developer he would never agree to pay for development under these conditions himself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381572</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267899420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work.</p></div><p>This is your opinion, and your clear intent and desire when you are soliciting work.  It is not however legal fact.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints.</p></div><p>It's difficult to find a photographer that agrees, because its a false legal assumption.  Your actions however are the proper way to deal with the situation... refuse to hire anyone to do the work, who refuse to transfer the copyrights.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I consider that a form of double jeopardy where I'm being forced to pay for something twice.</p></div><p>You're misusing the term "double jeopardy".  Double jeopardy only applies to criminal punishment.  This requirement to "pay for something twice" is also not something that is so unfair that it cannot be contracted away.  It's entirely reasonable for an artist (e.g. a photographer) to retain the rights to the works, which they produce.  They are after all artists.  If you want to own the copyrights to it, then you have to pay for that separately from simply having the artist produce the singular work for your enjoyment.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Software is no different.</p></div><p>Actually, it legally is different.  Specifically, there is no way at all for software to be written "for hire" unless you are a normal employee.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're being paid to perform a specific work, it's no different than if the person/organization paying you did the work themselves. You can't have both.</p></div><p>This is not legally correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone pays you to perform work , they own all rights to that work.This is your opinion , and your clear intent and desire when you are soliciting work .
It is not however legal fact.When I was married , we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed , and simply did n't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work , and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints.It 's difficult to find a photographer that agrees , because its a false legal assumption .
Your actions however are the proper way to deal with the situation... refuse to hire anyone to do the work , who refuse to transfer the copyrights.I consider that a form of double jeopardy where I 'm being forced to pay for something twice.You 're misusing the term " double jeopardy " .
Double jeopardy only applies to criminal punishment .
This requirement to " pay for something twice " is also not something that is so unfair that it can not be contracted away .
It 's entirely reasonable for an artist ( e.g .
a photographer ) to retain the rights to the works , which they produce .
They are after all artists .
If you want to own the copyrights to it , then you have to pay for that separately from simply having the artist produce the singular work for your enjoyment.Software is no different.Actually , it legally is different .
Specifically , there is no way at all for software to be written " for hire " unless you are a normal employee.If you 're being paid to perform a specific work , it 's no different than if the person/organization paying you did the work themselves .
You ca n't have both.This is not legally correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work.This is your opinion, and your clear intent and desire when you are soliciting work.
It is not however legal fact.When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints.It's difficult to find a photographer that agrees, because its a false legal assumption.
Your actions however are the proper way to deal with the situation... refuse to hire anyone to do the work, who refuse to transfer the copyrights.I consider that a form of double jeopardy where I'm being forced to pay for something twice.You're misusing the term "double jeopardy".
Double jeopardy only applies to criminal punishment.
This requirement to "pay for something twice" is also not something that is so unfair that it cannot be contracted away.
It's entirely reasonable for an artist (e.g.
a photographer) to retain the rights to the works, which they produce.
They are after all artists.
If you want to own the copyrights to it, then you have to pay for that separately from simply having the artist produce the singular work for your enjoyment.Software is no different.Actually, it legally is different.
Specifically, there is no way at all for software to be written "for hire" unless you are a normal employee.If you're being paid to perform a specific work, it's no different than if the person/organization paying you did the work themselves.
You can't have both.This is not legally correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382532</id>
	<title>Re:examples fail</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1267907100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No, but I didn't buy the Lindisfarne Gospels, I bought this bible, I own it and it's my bible. I do whatever I like with it. Tear pages out, glue new ones in, make a lot of paper aeroplanes if I like.</p></div></blockquote><p> But, do you have the right to copy the entire text of the bible you have purchased and use said text to print a new copy of said bible to sell or give away? Or, more to the point, purchase a copy of the book "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince", do you have a right to scan or type the contents of that book into a text or PDF file and then sell or give away copies of the file or the file itself?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but I did n't buy the Lindisfarne Gospels , I bought this bible , I own it and it 's my bible .
I do whatever I like with it .
Tear pages out , glue new ones in , make a lot of paper aeroplanes if I like .
But , do you have the right to copy the entire text of the bible you have purchased and use said text to print a new copy of said bible to sell or give away ?
Or , more to the point , purchase a copy of the book " Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince " , do you have a right to scan or type the contents of that book into a text or PDF file and then sell or give away copies of the file or the file itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, but I didn't buy the Lindisfarne Gospels, I bought this bible, I own it and it's my bible.
I do whatever I like with it.
Tear pages out, glue new ones in, make a lot of paper aeroplanes if I like.
But, do you have the right to copy the entire text of the bible you have purchased and use said text to print a new copy of said bible to sell or give away?
Or, more to the point, purchase a copy of the book "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince", do you have a right to scan or type the contents of that book into a text or PDF file and then sell or give away copies of the file or the file itself?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382782</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1267908660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most software development contracts I've seen have an "ownership of work product" clause or something similar. I suspect this is largely a non-problem, since a lawyer surely would know about this and the canned ones you download for free uually have that clause.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most software development contracts I 've seen have an " ownership of work product " clause or something similar .
I suspect this is largely a non-problem , since a lawyer surely would know about this and the canned ones you download for free uually have that clause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most software development contracts I've seen have an "ownership of work product" clause or something similar.
I suspect this is largely a non-problem, since a lawyer surely would know about this and the canned ones you download for free uually have that clause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381310</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1267897140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are contractor (and since you say "my companies fault" that seems unlikely - the IRS has pretty strict rules on what doesn't qualify as an independent contractor) then that's true.</p><p>If you are an employee then that is simply false:</p><p>"""<br>A &ldquo;work made for hire&rdquo; is&mdash;<br>(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or<br>""" - <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc\_sec\_17\_00000101----000-.html" title="cornell.edu">http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc\_sec\_17\_00000101----000-.html</a> [cornell.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are contractor ( and since you say " my companies fault " that seems unlikely - the IRS has pretty strict rules on what does n't qualify as an independent contractor ) then that 's true.If you are an employee then that is simply false : " " " A    work made for hire    is    ( 1 ) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment ; or " " " - http : //www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc \ _sec \ _17 \ _00000101----000-.html [ cornell.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are contractor (and since you say "my companies fault" that seems unlikely - the IRS has pretty strict rules on what doesn't qualify as an independent contractor) then that's true.If you are an employee then that is simply false:"""A “work made for hire” is—(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or""" - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc\_sec\_17\_00000101----000-.html [cornell.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267891200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a matter of US law, you are wrong.  Copyright in a work for hire resides with the employer (or whomever the work was made for).  See Circular 9 of the US Copyright Office.  If an entire program is being developed as a contract piece, it *might* not qualify as a work for hire, but contracted software components and anything a normal employee writes within the scope of his employment are works for hire, and the people writing the checks own those works.</p><p>I don't know about the corresponding laws in other countries, but if you work in the US, you are woefully misinformed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a matter of US law , you are wrong .
Copyright in a work for hire resides with the employer ( or whomever the work was made for ) .
See Circular 9 of the US Copyright Office .
If an entire program is being developed as a contract piece , it * might * not qualify as a work for hire , but contracted software components and anything a normal employee writes within the scope of his employment are works for hire , and the people writing the checks own those works.I do n't know about the corresponding laws in other countries , but if you work in the US , you are woefully misinformed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a matter of US law, you are wrong.
Copyright in a work for hire resides with the employer (or whomever the work was made for).
See Circular 9 of the US Copyright Office.
If an entire program is being developed as a contract piece, it *might* not qualify as a work for hire, but contracted software components and anything a normal employee writes within the scope of his employment are works for hire, and the people writing the checks own those works.I don't know about the corresponding laws in other countries, but if you work in the US, you are woefully misinformed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383886</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>Burn\_This\_City</author>
	<datestamp>1267873200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be an interesting insight, if you just paid a guy to build a house and that was that. In my world, however, I get hand cramps signing a horde of legal mumbo jumbo that says I get my house when I put the cash on the table. The same is not true for paying a guy to write some code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be an interesting insight , if you just paid a guy to build a house and that was that .
In my world , however , I get hand cramps signing a horde of legal mumbo jumbo that says I get my house when I put the cash on the table .
The same is not true for paying a guy to write some code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be an interesting insight, if you just paid a guy to build a house and that was that.
In my world, however, I get hand cramps signing a horde of legal mumbo jumbo that says I get my house when I put the cash on the table.
The same is not true for paying a guy to write some code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381016</id>
	<title>We have a young Bill Gates writing now?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1267893840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I paid someone to make a cake for me, I own the cake.  If I paid someone to paint a painting for me, I own the painting.  Why do people want to change the rules for software?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I paid someone to make a cake for me , I own the cake .
If I paid someone to paint a painting for me , I own the painting .
Why do people want to change the rules for software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I paid someone to make a cake for me, I own the cake.
If I paid someone to paint a painting for me, I own the painting.
Why do people want to change the rules for software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381596</id>
	<title>When an employer pays an employee...</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1267899720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..., then that employer owns the work the employee has done.  This is not difficult to understand.  If I pay some third-party to do a job for me that requires custom-made coding, then I own the code.  If I pay a landscaper to landscape my property, then I own the landscaping and continue to own the property after the job is done.</p><p>It is time for everyone to realize that you own nothing that you were paid to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... , then that employer owns the work the employee has done .
This is not difficult to understand .
If I pay some third-party to do a job for me that requires custom-made coding , then I own the code .
If I pay a landscaper to landscape my property , then I own the landscaping and continue to own the property after the job is done.It is time for everyone to realize that you own nothing that you were paid to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..., then that employer owns the work the employee has done.
This is not difficult to understand.
If I pay some third-party to do a job for me that requires custom-made coding, then I own the code.
If I pay a landscaper to landscape my property, then I own the landscaping and continue to own the property after the job is done.It is time for everyone to realize that you own nothing that you were paid to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380706</id>
	<title>I call "bullshit"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267890720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the article, he states "One problem is that if you&rsquo;re working in an interpreted language such as PHP then your code isn&rsquo;t compiled, so in practice your client does receive source code and can do what they like to it, even though they have no legal right to."</p><p>It's your responsibility to elucidate what's accceptible and what's not. Moreover, if someone updates your code to fix say a spelling error, then that's not copyright infringenment, it's just updating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the article , he states " One problem is that if you    re working in an interpreted language such as PHP then your code isn    t compiled , so in practice your client does receive source code and can do what they like to it , even though they have no legal right to .
" It 's your responsibility to elucidate what 's accceptible and what 's not .
Moreover , if someone updates your code to fix say a spelling error , then that 's not copyright infringenment , it 's just updating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the article, he states "One problem is that if you’re working in an interpreted language such as PHP then your code isn’t compiled, so in practice your client does receive source code and can do what they like to it, even though they have no legal right to.
"It's your responsibility to elucidate what's accceptible and what's not.
Moreover, if someone updates your code to fix say a spelling error, then that's not copyright infringenment, it's just updating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383368</id>
	<title>No, you're the one who's incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267869420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The dentist would give you the x-rays because *you paid for them*.</p><p>You and the OP may not like reality, but that doesn't change it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The dentist would give you the x-rays because * you paid for them * .You and the OP may not like reality , but that does n't change it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dentist would give you the x-rays because *you paid for them*.You and the OP may not like reality, but that doesn't change it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380680</id>
	<title>Re:same deal with photography</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1267890540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends, they should be able to contract either way, no issue there. Either pay for a copy of the photos. Or pay for the full rights if they don't want you using them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends , they should be able to contract either way , no issue there .
Either pay for a copy of the photos .
Or pay for the full rights if they do n't want you using them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends, they should be able to contract either way, no issue there.
Either pay for a copy of the photos.
Or pay for the full rights if they don't want you using them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384104</id>
	<title>Those low res images don't harm their reputation?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267874760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is a photographer's reputation damaged if a married couple make a dodgy print at home for themselves, their parents, or whatever? The public will see the photographer's website and portfolio, which will only contain what he wants.</p><p>The only example I can think of is if the couple put dodgy images up on a website, and then said "Taken by such-and-such" - but then I have no problem with that being illegal, that would be a case of false or misleading information. But if they just put up the images, how's that a problem?</p><p><i>a DVD of low resolution images</i></p><p>Wait, all that waffle about reputation, yet they're happy to give out <i>low resolution images</i> for public websites?! Why not high quality ones - both for the benefit of the married couple, and so that the photographer's poor little reputation isn't tarnished?</p><p>(I write code for a living. Should I retain copyright, so my "reputation" isn't harmed if my company does something stupid with it?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is a photographer 's reputation damaged if a married couple make a dodgy print at home for themselves , their parents , or whatever ?
The public will see the photographer 's website and portfolio , which will only contain what he wants.The only example I can think of is if the couple put dodgy images up on a website , and then said " Taken by such-and-such " - but then I have no problem with that being illegal , that would be a case of false or misleading information .
But if they just put up the images , how 's that a problem ? a DVD of low resolution imagesWait , all that waffle about reputation , yet they 're happy to give out low resolution images for public websites ? !
Why not high quality ones - both for the benefit of the married couple , and so that the photographer 's poor little reputation is n't tarnished ?
( I write code for a living .
Should I retain copyright , so my " reputation " is n't harmed if my company does something stupid with it ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is a photographer's reputation damaged if a married couple make a dodgy print at home for themselves, their parents, or whatever?
The public will see the photographer's website and portfolio, which will only contain what he wants.The only example I can think of is if the couple put dodgy images up on a website, and then said "Taken by such-and-such" - but then I have no problem with that being illegal, that would be a case of false or misleading information.
But if they just put up the images, how's that a problem?a DVD of low resolution imagesWait, all that waffle about reputation, yet they're happy to give out low resolution images for public websites?!
Why not high quality ones - both for the benefit of the married couple, and so that the photographer's poor little reputation isn't tarnished?
(I write code for a living.
Should I retain copyright, so my "reputation" isn't harmed if my company does something stupid with it?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380796</id>
	<title>Can steal what you can't own.</title>
	<author>Dukenukemx</author>
	<datestamp>1267891560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, if I take a copy of it, then I obviously didn't pirate it.  Since I can never own it, I can never steal it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if I take a copy of it , then I obviously did n't pirate it .
Since I can never own it , I can never steal it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if I take a copy of it, then I obviously didn't pirate it.
Since I can never own it, I can never steal it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382150</id>
	<title>Re:I call "bullshit"</title>
	<author>jbengt</author>
	<datestamp>1267904880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I think he is completely off on this.  Without a contract, even <em>if</em> it is not considered a work for hire, there is an implied consent for the buyer to use the code as required for its' intended purpose, which probably includes the right to use, run, back-up, copy to different servers and/or clients, and maintain (read: modify and improve or at least bug-fix), the code.  Without a contract, of course, both sides may be leaving their destinies to the whims of a judge or jury.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think he is completely off on this .
Without a contract , even if it is not considered a work for hire , there is an implied consent for the buyer to use the code as required for its ' intended purpose , which probably includes the right to use , run , back-up , copy to different servers and/or clients , and maintain ( read : modify and improve or at least bug-fix ) , the code .
Without a contract , of course , both sides may be leaving their destinies to the whims of a judge or jury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think he is completely off on this.
Without a contract, even if it is not considered a work for hire, there is an implied consent for the buyer to use the code as required for its' intended purpose, which probably includes the right to use, run, back-up, copy to different servers and/or clients, and maintain (read: modify and improve or at least bug-fix), the code.
Without a contract, of course, both sides may be leaving their destinies to the whims of a judge or jury.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568</id>
	<title>Incorrect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267889460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work.  When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints.  I consider that a form of double jeopardy where I'm being forced to pay for something twice.</p><p>Software is no different.  If you're being paid to perform a specific work, it's no different than if the person/organization paying you did the work themselves.  You can't have both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone pays you to perform work , they own all rights to that work .
When I was married , we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed , and simply did n't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work , and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints .
I consider that a form of double jeopardy where I 'm being forced to pay for something twice.Software is no different .
If you 're being paid to perform a specific work , it 's no different than if the person/organization paying you did the work themselves .
You ca n't have both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work.
When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints.
I consider that a form of double jeopardy where I'm being forced to pay for something twice.Software is no different.
If you're being paid to perform a specific work, it's no different than if the person/organization paying you did the work themselves.
You can't have both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380816</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1267891800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you think you own the code in the engine control system of your car, a delivered item? Or the code in your mobile phone, equally delivered? Or, for that matter, Microsoft Windows, delivered on CD?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you think you own the code in the engine control system of your car , a delivered item ?
Or the code in your mobile phone , equally delivered ?
Or , for that matter , Microsoft Windows , delivered on CD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you think you own the code in the engine control system of your car, a delivered item?
Or the code in your mobile phone, equally delivered?
Or, for that matter, Microsoft Windows, delivered on CD?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381558</id>
	<title>Re:False dichotomy of Microsoft/Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267899300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you're missing a few decades, if your purpose was to establish a historical context</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're missing a few decades , if your purpose was to establish a historical context</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're missing a few decades, if your purpose was to establish a historical context</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383360</id>
	<title>UK not US</title>
	<author>jamie(really)</author>
	<datestamp>1267869360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This chap is in the UK, so its a whole different kettle of fish.</p><p>In the USA, he owns his own work. Without an explicit contract to the contrary, he still owns it, and even with a contract, he still owns it. As a result, any contract over here where the client really wants the code will include the language along the lines of "even if the law determines that you own the copyright, we the client gets an exclusive, permanent license to use it, and you don't get to give it to anyone else". Its also why my contracts are clear about what they, the client, do get, and what they don't.</p><p>On the whole, stuff that we agree that they are going to "own", I keep copyright, and they get permanent, exclusive, right to assign etc. Then there's stuff that I give them a non-exclusive source code license for, and then there's stuff that they only get binary rights to, and for all of that they may or may not have the right to sublicense, redistribute etc etc. There is no excuse not have this clear.</p><p>There are memorandums of understanding, and even without paper, there are conversations to be had (and *documented* that I had them if it ever gets ugly which is unlikely if I have them at all). Conversations are an opportunity to explain what they get and why, and why this is a benefit for them. Also, its an opportunity for me to learn if they just want me to do all the hard work and then give it to a script kiddy, or whether they want to establish a relationship. And sometimes the rest of the work will only require a script kiddy, and I'd be bored to tears anyway, even subcontracting it out - and if that's the case, we can work out a price. Its called negotiation.</p><p>The other issue in the USA is the IRS. The IRS doesn't care about what a contract says on paper. If I am were to work as an employee would, then I would be an employee as far as the IRS is concerned. So if the client owned what I produce (all of it), that's one big check box on the IRS's duck test. The penalties are significant. For the employer, they would have to pay me as an employee and would owe more tax. As an employee, I would lose the ability to write off my expenses.</p><p>I initially thought this was unfair. But after consideration, I think it is quite fair. If a programmer don't have the guts to turn down contracts that basically make them a wage slave, then they don't get to pretend they are an independent business and reap the tax benefits that those of us taking a risk do get. At least be clear that an employer/employee relationship exists, and negotiate accordingly. I could say that pretending otherwise "hurts us all", but while it does to an extent, it *really* hurts those who the IRS look at.   I go to great lengths to make sure that what I want to own, I own, and I am taking financial risks to do that. I see it as investment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This chap is in the UK , so its a whole different kettle of fish.In the USA , he owns his own work .
Without an explicit contract to the contrary , he still owns it , and even with a contract , he still owns it .
As a result , any contract over here where the client really wants the code will include the language along the lines of " even if the law determines that you own the copyright , we the client gets an exclusive , permanent license to use it , and you do n't get to give it to anyone else " .
Its also why my contracts are clear about what they , the client , do get , and what they do n't.On the whole , stuff that we agree that they are going to " own " , I keep copyright , and they get permanent , exclusive , right to assign etc .
Then there 's stuff that I give them a non-exclusive source code license for , and then there 's stuff that they only get binary rights to , and for all of that they may or may not have the right to sublicense , redistribute etc etc .
There is no excuse not have this clear.There are memorandums of understanding , and even without paper , there are conversations to be had ( and * documented * that I had them if it ever gets ugly which is unlikely if I have them at all ) .
Conversations are an opportunity to explain what they get and why , and why this is a benefit for them .
Also , its an opportunity for me to learn if they just want me to do all the hard work and then give it to a script kiddy , or whether they want to establish a relationship .
And sometimes the rest of the work will only require a script kiddy , and I 'd be bored to tears anyway , even subcontracting it out - and if that 's the case , we can work out a price .
Its called negotiation.The other issue in the USA is the IRS .
The IRS does n't care about what a contract says on paper .
If I am were to work as an employee would , then I would be an employee as far as the IRS is concerned .
So if the client owned what I produce ( all of it ) , that 's one big check box on the IRS 's duck test .
The penalties are significant .
For the employer , they would have to pay me as an employee and would owe more tax .
As an employee , I would lose the ability to write off my expenses.I initially thought this was unfair .
But after consideration , I think it is quite fair .
If a programmer do n't have the guts to turn down contracts that basically make them a wage slave , then they do n't get to pretend they are an independent business and reap the tax benefits that those of us taking a risk do get .
At least be clear that an employer/employee relationship exists , and negotiate accordingly .
I could say that pretending otherwise " hurts us all " , but while it does to an extent , it * really * hurts those who the IRS look at .
I go to great lengths to make sure that what I want to own , I own , and I am taking financial risks to do that .
I see it as investment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This chap is in the UK, so its a whole different kettle of fish.In the USA, he owns his own work.
Without an explicit contract to the contrary, he still owns it, and even with a contract, he still owns it.
As a result, any contract over here where the client really wants the code will include the language along the lines of "even if the law determines that you own the copyright, we the client gets an exclusive, permanent license to use it, and you don't get to give it to anyone else".
Its also why my contracts are clear about what they, the client, do get, and what they don't.On the whole, stuff that we agree that they are going to "own", I keep copyright, and they get permanent, exclusive, right to assign etc.
Then there's stuff that I give them a non-exclusive source code license for, and then there's stuff that they only get binary rights to, and for all of that they may or may not have the right to sublicense, redistribute etc etc.
There is no excuse not have this clear.There are memorandums of understanding, and even without paper, there are conversations to be had (and *documented* that I had them if it ever gets ugly which is unlikely if I have them at all).
Conversations are an opportunity to explain what they get and why, and why this is a benefit for them.
Also, its an opportunity for me to learn if they just want me to do all the hard work and then give it to a script kiddy, or whether they want to establish a relationship.
And sometimes the rest of the work will only require a script kiddy, and I'd be bored to tears anyway, even subcontracting it out - and if that's the case, we can work out a price.
Its called negotiation.The other issue in the USA is the IRS.
The IRS doesn't care about what a contract says on paper.
If I am were to work as an employee would, then I would be an employee as far as the IRS is concerned.
So if the client owned what I produce (all of it), that's one big check box on the IRS's duck test.
The penalties are significant.
For the employer, they would have to pay me as an employee and would owe more tax.
As an employee, I would lose the ability to write off my expenses.I initially thought this was unfair.
But after consideration, I think it is quite fair.
If a programmer don't have the guts to turn down contracts that basically make them a wage slave, then they don't get to pretend they are an independent business and reap the tax benefits that those of us taking a risk do get.
At least be clear that an employer/employee relationship exists, and negotiate accordingly.
I could say that pretending otherwise "hurts us all", but while it does to an extent, it *really* hurts those who the IRS look at.
I go to great lengths to make sure that what I want to own, I own, and I am taking financial risks to do that.
I see it as investment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31386576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31385102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31386330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31421524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31398956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31385286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31387492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1319208_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31421524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31386330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380994
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31386576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380762
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381902
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381420
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381504
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31385286
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381974
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382824
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384722
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31398956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31385102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31383070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31387492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31381630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31382872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31384448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1319208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1319208.31380680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
