<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_02_167217</id>
	<title>Cloud Computing, Music Lockers, and the Supreme Court</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243959540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Net speculation has swirled about the DOJ being stacked with media company-friendly attorneys who will throw the consumer under the bus, but in one of the first rulings, the Solicitor General defended network DVRs, mentioned cloud computing and a music locker &mdash; which has to be a first for a Supreme Court brief. <a href="http://michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute\_id=295">Michael Robertson chronicles the latest developments</a> and <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/15932800/Solicitor-General-Brief-on-RSDVR">you can read the brief for yourself</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Net speculation has swirled about the DOJ being stacked with media company-friendly attorneys who will throw the consumer under the bus , but in one of the first rulings , the Solicitor General defended network DVRs , mentioned cloud computing and a music locker    which has to be a first for a Supreme Court brief .
Michael Robertson chronicles the latest developments and you can read the brief for yourself .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Net speculation has swirled about the DOJ being stacked with media company-friendly attorneys who will throw the consumer under the bus, but in one of the first rulings, the Solicitor General defended network DVRs, mentioned cloud computing and a music locker — which has to be a first for a Supreme Court brief.
Michael Robertson chronicles the latest developments and you can read the brief for yourself.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185397</id>
	<title>Not the great victory we might hope</title>
	<author>PhysicsPhil</author>
	<datestamp>1243969920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this particular litigation, the plaintiffs and defendants made various stipulations.  Notably the plaintiffs agreed to sue over primary copyright infringement but not on contributory (secondary) infringement. Defendants, on the other hand, agreed not to raise the various fair-use defenses that were available to them.  In at least part of their brief the DOJ asserted that because of these waivers, this was not a useful test case for the Supreme Court because it wouldn't examine all of the arguments that could be made for each side.  The DOJ didn't particularly come out in favour of IT rights; they just felt this wasn't the best case to settle them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this particular litigation , the plaintiffs and defendants made various stipulations .
Notably the plaintiffs agreed to sue over primary copyright infringement but not on contributory ( secondary ) infringement .
Defendants , on the other hand , agreed not to raise the various fair-use defenses that were available to them .
In at least part of their brief the DOJ asserted that because of these waivers , this was not a useful test case for the Supreme Court because it would n't examine all of the arguments that could be made for each side .
The DOJ did n't particularly come out in favour of IT rights ; they just felt this was n't the best case to settle them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this particular litigation, the plaintiffs and defendants made various stipulations.
Notably the plaintiffs agreed to sue over primary copyright infringement but not on contributory (secondary) infringement.
Defendants, on the other hand, agreed not to raise the various fair-use defenses that were available to them.
In at least part of their brief the DOJ asserted that because of these waivers, this was not a useful test case for the Supreme Court because it wouldn't examine all of the arguments that could be made for each side.
The DOJ didn't particularly come out in favour of IT rights; they just felt this wasn't the best case to settle them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184679</id>
	<title>Re:Why the surprise??</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1243966920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them..</i></p><p>"known to be"?  Jebus, that's their fucking <b>job</b>!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them.. " known to be " ?
Jebus , that 's their fucking job !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them.."known to be"?
Jebus, that's their fucking job!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184577</id>
	<title>Not a ruling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243966500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is only a brief filed by the Solicitor General.</p><p>She is, by the way, brilliant. I know her quite well.</p><p>-- AnonymousCoward@law.harvard.edu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is only a brief filed by the Solicitor General.She is , by the way , brilliant .
I know her quite well.-- AnonymousCoward @ law.harvard.edu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is only a brief filed by the Solicitor General.She is, by the way, brilliant.
I know her quite well.-- AnonymousCoward@law.harvard.edu</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184139</id>
	<title>The cloud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243964700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just released a stink cloud from my ass and it's free to anyone who should walk by. Come, young man, and sample my warez!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just released a stink cloud from my ass and it 's free to anyone who should walk by .
Come , young man , and sample my warez !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just released a stink cloud from my ass and it's free to anyone who should walk by.
Come, young man, and sample my warez!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183839</id>
	<title>Music locker?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243963380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was a kid, we used to catch wasps in tupperwares and release them into the lockers of kids that we didn't like.  I wonder what the Solicitor General would think of that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a kid , we used to catch wasps in tupperwares and release them into the lockers of kids that we did n't like .
I wonder what the Solicitor General would think of that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a kid, we used to catch wasps in tupperwares and release them into the lockers of kids that we didn't like.
I wonder what the Solicitor General would think of that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183999</id>
	<title>Re:Thank goodness</title>
	<author>Voltageaav</author>
	<datestamp>1243964160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but it's helping their consumers as much as it is them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but it 's helping their consumers as much as it is them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but it's helping their consumers as much as it is them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961</id>
	<title>Why the surprise??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243964040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them..<br> <br>
When employeed by the RIAA ofc they are going to be aggressive to earn their keep.
<br> <br>
When employed by DoJ they don't care about the RIAA the govenment is paying them so they do what the government wants and if the govenment doesnt care they use their own views.
<br> <br>
Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them. . When employeed by the RIAA ofc they are going to be aggressive to earn their keep .
When employed by DoJ they do n't care about the RIAA the govenment is paying them so they do what the government wants and if the govenment doesnt care they use their own views .
Logically ( most ) lawyers do n't like to repersent rapists ( for example ) but they will when paid. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them.. 
When employeed by the RIAA ofc they are going to be aggressive to earn their keep.
When employed by DoJ they don't care about the RIAA the govenment is paying them so they do what the government wants and if the govenment doesnt care they use their own views.
Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184989</id>
	<title>Don't jump to conclusions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243968180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As - I believe it was - NYCL said, the recent exRIAA appointees can't make an input on DoJ rulings like the one mentioned for 2 years.<br> <br>Let's see what happens in two years time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As - I believe it was - NYCL said , the recent exRIAA appointees ca n't make an input on DoJ rulings like the one mentioned for 2 years .
Let 's see what happens in two years time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As - I believe it was - NYCL said, the recent exRIAA appointees can't make an input on DoJ rulings like the one mentioned for 2 years.
Let's see what happens in two years time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184479</id>
	<title>Re:Why the surprise??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243966200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are doing this to ensure that when an innocent man is accused of rape, he is defended and hopefully exonerated. (Because you can't always tell a priori who is innocent, they have to defend all of the accused.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are doing this to ensure that when an innocent man is accused of rape , he is defended and hopefully exonerated .
( Because you ca n't always tell a priori who is innocent , they have to defend all of the accused .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are doing this to ensure that when an innocent man is accused of rape, he is defended and hopefully exonerated.
(Because you can't always tell a priori who is innocent, they have to defend all of the accused.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184729</id>
	<title>Music locker?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243967100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In case anyone else was wondering, a music locker isn't a gym locker that plays music when you open it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>One example may be music lockering services, which permit users to upload files to a remote computer server and stream that music to a personal device over the Internet.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In case anyone else was wondering , a music locker is n't a gym locker that plays music when you open it.One example may be music lockering services , which permit users to upload files to a remote computer server and stream that music to a personal device over the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case anyone else was wondering, a music locker isn't a gym locker that plays music when you open it.One example may be music lockering services, which permit users to upload files to a remote computer server and stream that music to a personal device over the Internet.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28191737</id>
	<title>Re:Why Attorneys are like Microsoft Employees....</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1243962720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>lawyers have an ethical obligation</i> <p>Wait, you lost me there with ethics and lawyers in the same sentence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lawyers have an ethical obligation Wait , you lost me there with ethics and lawyers in the same sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lawyers have an ethical obligation Wait, you lost me there with ethics and lawyers in the same sentence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185477</id>
	<title>Re:Smug Contempt of Lawyers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243970280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No ethical professional accepts a job and then undercuts the client's goals by substituting their own.</i></p><p>No, an ethical professional accepts no job that would require them to compromise their ethics.  A lawyer who takes jobs on both sides of an ethical issue has either compromised their ethics for one client or the other, or they have no ethics at all.</p><p><i>Right now, I'm reading this biography of one well-known lawyer: Abraham Lincoln. (More or less on the top of my list of great Americans.) </i></p><p>Lincoln destroyed states rights and set the stage for the all encompassing federal government we have today.  He should have just let the South go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No ethical professional accepts a job and then undercuts the client 's goals by substituting their own.No , an ethical professional accepts no job that would require them to compromise their ethics .
A lawyer who takes jobs on both sides of an ethical issue has either compromised their ethics for one client or the other , or they have no ethics at all.Right now , I 'm reading this biography of one well-known lawyer : Abraham Lincoln .
( More or less on the top of my list of great Americans .
) Lincoln destroyed states rights and set the stage for the all encompassing federal government we have today .
He should have just let the South go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No ethical professional accepts a job and then undercuts the client's goals by substituting their own.No, an ethical professional accepts no job that would require them to compromise their ethics.
A lawyer who takes jobs on both sides of an ethical issue has either compromised their ethics for one client or the other, or they have no ethics at all.Right now, I'm reading this biography of one well-known lawyer: Abraham Lincoln.
(More or less on the top of my list of great Americans.
) Lincoln destroyed states rights and set the stage for the all encompassing federal government we have today.
He should have just let the South go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184109</id>
	<title>Re:Thank goodness</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1243964640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the others have noted, this would have meant 'tons of money' for 'big businesses' either way.  Since that is the same on both sides of the equation, this ruling is really about the people and not the companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the others have noted , this would have meant 'tons of money ' for 'big businesses ' either way .
Since that is the same on both sides of the equation , this ruling is really about the people and not the companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the others have noted, this would have meant 'tons of money' for 'big businesses' either way.
Since that is the same on both sides of the equation, this ruling is really about the people and not the companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184673</id>
	<title>Now fix the "Dominate/Manipulate COnsumer Act"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243966920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is nice to see them standing up for the rights of people other than the entertainment industry for a change. I wish they would fix the situation where I cannot watch my DVDs on my Linux box though.I know this will never happen. The average American is too stupid to care about the DMCA, and the law was passed by corrupt officials to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is nice to see them standing up for the rights of people other than the entertainment industry for a change .
I wish they would fix the situation where I can not watch my DVDs on my Linux box though.I know this will never happen .
The average American is too stupid to care about the DMCA , and the law was passed by corrupt officials to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is nice to see them standing up for the rights of people other than the entertainment industry for a change.
I wish they would fix the situation where I cannot watch my DVDs on my Linux box though.I know this will never happen.
The average American is too stupid to care about the DMCA, and the law was passed by corrupt officials to begin with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185637</id>
	<title>Re:Why the surprise??</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1243971060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When employed by DoJ they don't care about the RIAA the govenment is paying them so they do what the government wants and <b>if the govenment doesnt care</b> they use their own views.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>(chuckles...) My, what a charmingly innocent view. Influence is a commodity in our system of government. It is bought, sold, and  traded. To even speculate that there might be an issue, especially one which has reached the DoJ and/or SCOTUS, has not attracted a market for "caring" individuals is depressingly naive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When employed by DoJ they do n't care about the RIAA the govenment is paying them so they do what the government wants and if the govenment doesnt care they use their own views .
. ( chuckles... ) My , what a charmingly innocent view .
Influence is a commodity in our system of government .
It is bought , sold , and traded .
To even speculate that there might be an issue , especially one which has reached the DoJ and/or SCOTUS , has not attracted a market for " caring " individuals is depressingly naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When employed by DoJ they don't care about the RIAA the govenment is paying them so they do what the government wants and if the govenment doesnt care they use their own views.
.(chuckles...) My, what a charmingly innocent view.
Influence is a commodity in our system of government.
It is bought, sold, and  traded.
To even speculate that there might be an issue, especially one which has reached the DoJ and/or SCOTUS, has not attracted a market for "caring" individuals is depressingly naive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184751</id>
	<title>Re:Why the surprise??</title>
	<author>Leafheart</author>
	<datestamp>1243967160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When employed by DoJ they don't care about the RIAA</p> </div><p>Unless RIAA pays more for them, "off-record" than the government. And since, as part of the profession, <i>most newsworthy</i> lawyers are basically merceneries, chances were good they would go with RIAA. Looks like they weren't that corrupt, or more probably, they are saving face right now to backstab latter.</p><p>So, cheer for the record, but don't put your gloves down yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When employed by DoJ they do n't care about the RIAA Unless RIAA pays more for them , " off-record " than the government .
And since , as part of the profession , most newsworthy lawyers are basically merceneries , chances were good they would go with RIAA .
Looks like they were n't that corrupt , or more probably , they are saving face right now to backstab latter.So , cheer for the record , but do n't put your gloves down yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When employed by DoJ they don't care about the RIAA Unless RIAA pays more for them, "off-record" than the government.
And since, as part of the profession, most newsworthy lawyers are basically merceneries, chances were good they would go with RIAA.
Looks like they weren't that corrupt, or more probably, they are saving face right now to backstab latter.So, cheer for the record, but don't put your gloves down yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184797</id>
	<title>Re:Thank goodness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243967340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a wonderful analogy you have there. The two corporations are like two heavy-weight boxers, and the DoJ is like the referee. If the outcome is beneficial to consumers, it will be purely by coincidence.</p><p>If the consumer-interest groups were going up against the entertainment industry, we would have lost long ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a wonderful analogy you have there .
The two corporations are like two heavy-weight boxers , and the DoJ is like the referee .
If the outcome is beneficial to consumers , it will be purely by coincidence.If the consumer-interest groups were going up against the entertainment industry , we would have lost long ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a wonderful analogy you have there.
The two corporations are like two heavy-weight boxers, and the DoJ is like the referee.
If the outcome is beneficial to consumers, it will be purely by coincidence.If the consumer-interest groups were going up against the entertainment industry, we would have lost long ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28186961</id>
	<title>Re:Smug Contempt of Lawyers</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1243933560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A lawyer who takes jobs on both sides of an ethical issue has either compromised their ethics for one client or the other, or they have no ethics at all.</p></div><p>I said he <i>offered</i>. Of course he didn't represent both sides!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Lincoln destroyed states rights and set the stage for the all encompassing federal government we have today. He should have just let the South go.</p></div><p>Oh of course, states rights are so much more important than human rights. Ideas like "liberty is an inalienable right" is just a passing fad. Besides, slaves had it <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASwhipping.htm" title="schoolnet.co.uk">pretty good</a> [schoolnet.co.uk], right?</p><p>If the southern states had been allowed to go their own way, they would have been followed by every other region with a real or imagined grievance. Think they would have held on the the west coast? Not likely, since they had only recently settled territorial disputes with the British empire and Mexico (the latter by occupying their capital city), with the Russian Empire showing more than a little interest. <i>Maybe</i> they would have held on to the prairie states.</p><p>That "all encompassing federal government" is the right's favorite straw man &mdash; though conservatives always seem to <i>increase</i> government power and spending when they're in charge. Whatever its faults, a strong central government is not something you can live without if you want your nation to be a leading economic power. Which leads to many other kinds of power &mdash; recall that the CSA disappeared because they didn't have the industrial capacity to wage a modern war.</p><p>If you want to live in a country where government power localized and limited, I suggest Central America.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lawyer who takes jobs on both sides of an ethical issue has either compromised their ethics for one client or the other , or they have no ethics at all.I said he offered .
Of course he did n't represent both sides ! Lincoln destroyed states rights and set the stage for the all encompassing federal government we have today .
He should have just let the South go.Oh of course , states rights are so much more important than human rights .
Ideas like " liberty is an inalienable right " is just a passing fad .
Besides , slaves had it pretty good [ schoolnet.co.uk ] , right ? If the southern states had been allowed to go their own way , they would have been followed by every other region with a real or imagined grievance .
Think they would have held on the the west coast ?
Not likely , since they had only recently settled territorial disputes with the British empire and Mexico ( the latter by occupying their capital city ) , with the Russian Empire showing more than a little interest .
Maybe they would have held on to the prairie states.That " all encompassing federal government " is the right 's favorite straw man    though conservatives always seem to increase government power and spending when they 're in charge .
Whatever its faults , a strong central government is not something you can live without if you want your nation to be a leading economic power .
Which leads to many other kinds of power    recall that the CSA disappeared because they did n't have the industrial capacity to wage a modern war.If you want to live in a country where government power localized and limited , I suggest Central America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lawyer who takes jobs on both sides of an ethical issue has either compromised their ethics for one client or the other, or they have no ethics at all.I said he offered.
Of course he didn't represent both sides!Lincoln destroyed states rights and set the stage for the all encompassing federal government we have today.
He should have just let the South go.Oh of course, states rights are so much more important than human rights.
Ideas like "liberty is an inalienable right" is just a passing fad.
Besides, slaves had it pretty good [schoolnet.co.uk], right?If the southern states had been allowed to go their own way, they would have been followed by every other region with a real or imagined grievance.
Think they would have held on the the west coast?
Not likely, since they had only recently settled territorial disputes with the British empire and Mexico (the latter by occupying their capital city), with the Russian Empire showing more than a little interest.
Maybe they would have held on to the prairie states.That "all encompassing federal government" is the right's favorite straw man — though conservatives always seem to increase government power and spending when they're in charge.
Whatever its faults, a strong central government is not something you can live without if you want your nation to be a leading economic power.
Which leads to many other kinds of power — recall that the CSA disappeared because they didn't have the industrial capacity to wage a modern war.If you want to live in a country where government power localized and limited, I suggest Central America.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184309</id>
	<title>I love these "Yes, Obama is still shiny!" stories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243965360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, lookie here!  All those RIAA attorneys don't always support their former client.</p><p>Meanwhile, one of the largest industries in the US is being nationalized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , lookie here !
All those RIAA attorneys do n't always support their former client.Meanwhile , one of the largest industries in the US is being nationalized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, lookie here!
All those RIAA attorneys don't always support their former client.Meanwhile, one of the largest industries in the US is being nationalized.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183907</id>
	<title>Thank goodness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243963620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a relief to see our government coming out on the side of big businesses (cable TV/Internet service providers). Yes, this bodes well for consumers, but at its heart, this is about enabling big businesses to make tons of money. The MPAA/RIAA is not the only or biggest corporate interest the government is supporting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a relief to see our government coming out on the side of big businesses ( cable TV/Internet service providers ) .
Yes , this bodes well for consumers , but at its heart , this is about enabling big businesses to make tons of money .
The MPAA/RIAA is not the only or biggest corporate interest the government is supporting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a relief to see our government coming out on the side of big businesses (cable TV/Internet service providers).
Yes, this bodes well for consumers, but at its heart, this is about enabling big businesses to make tons of money.
The MPAA/RIAA is not the only or biggest corporate interest the government is supporting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184461</id>
	<title>Consumers under bus?</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1243966140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And when these consumers under the bus get squished they all say, "Arrrrrrr!" And their parrots and peg legs go flying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And when these consumers under the bus get squished they all say , " Arrrrrrr !
" And their parrots and peg legs go flying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when these consumers under the bus get squished they all say, "Arrrrrrr!
" And their parrots and peg legs go flying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28186819</id>
	<title>Re:Why the surprise??</title>
	<author>slashdime</author>
	<datestamp>1243976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid.."<br> <br>

While I'm all for lawyer bashing because IANAL and there are plenty of anecdotes that will probably back up your views and mod mine down, let's be reasonable here.<br> <br>

"Logically", no one became a lawyer because they "like to represent rapists", but because they believe in the rule of law, or feel that everyone deserves a right to defend themselves in court.<br> <br>

So it's more like, "Lawyers don't like to represent rapists, but they will because they live in a society where the accused have rights no matter what the crime."<br> <br>

Addendum to rub some salt in the wound: it's re<b>pre</b>sent, not repersent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Logically ( most ) lawyers do n't like to repersent rapists ( for example ) but they will when paid.. " While I 'm all for lawyer bashing because IANAL and there are plenty of anecdotes that will probably back up your views and mod mine down , let 's be reasonable here .
" Logically " , no one became a lawyer because they " like to represent rapists " , but because they believe in the rule of law , or feel that everyone deserves a right to defend themselves in court .
So it 's more like , " Lawyers do n't like to represent rapists , but they will because they live in a society where the accused have rights no matter what the crime .
" Addendum to rub some salt in the wound : it 's represent , not repersent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid.." 

While I'm all for lawyer bashing because IANAL and there are plenty of anecdotes that will probably back up your views and mod mine down, let's be reasonable here.
"Logically", no one became a lawyer because they "like to represent rapists", but because they believe in the rule of law, or feel that everyone deserves a right to defend themselves in court.
So it's more like, "Lawyers don't like to represent rapists, but they will because they live in a society where the accused have rights no matter what the crime.
" 

Addendum to rub some salt in the wound: it's represent, not repersent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185463</id>
	<title>Not really all that great</title>
	<author>Neeperando</author>
	<datestamp>1243970220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really see how this is a win (or even a loss, for that matter) for the consumer.  Who owns the content that I paid for?  The argument was whether it was owned by the cable company or the network, and it came up for the cable company.  Who cares?  It's still not me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really see how this is a win ( or even a loss , for that matter ) for the consumer .
Who owns the content that I paid for ?
The argument was whether it was owned by the cable company or the network , and it came up for the cable company .
Who cares ?
It 's still not me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really see how this is a win (or even a loss, for that matter) for the consumer.
Who owns the content that I paid for?
The argument was whether it was owned by the cable company or the network, and it came up for the cable company.
Who cares?
It's still not me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28190435</id>
	<title>Re:Why the surprise??</title>
	<author>chrismcb</author>
	<datestamp>1243951200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid..</p></div><p>How is this logical? Many defenders believe in the American Way, and that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that everyone should have their day in court.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Logically ( most ) lawyers do n't like to repersent rapists ( for example ) but they will when paid..How is this logical ?
Many defenders believe in the American Way , and that you are innocent until proven guilty , and that everyone should have their day in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid..How is this logical?
Many defenders believe in the American Way, and that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that everyone should have their day in court.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184449</id>
	<title>Re:Why the surprise??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243966080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid..</p></div><p>Or because everyone deserves proper representation in order for the justice system to make good decisions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Logically ( most ) lawyers do n't like to repersent rapists ( for example ) but they will when paid..Or because everyone deserves proper representation in order for the justice system to make good decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid..Or because everyone deserves proper representation in order for the justice system to make good decisions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185107</id>
	<title>Smug Contempt of Lawyers</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1243968600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid..</p></div><p>Uh, you do understand the difference in law between somebody who "everybody knows" has committed rape (or some other crime) and somebody whose criminality has actually been established at trial? This distinction is not academic to <a href="http://www.google.com/search?\%5Dq=rape+dna+exonerated" title="google.com">a lot of people</a> [google.com]. And even people who are convicted or confessed criminals have the right to representation when being sentenced.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them..</p></div><p>And this is not a sign of their moral degeneracy. No ethical professional accepts a job and then undercuts the client's goals by substituting their own. This is particularly important when you're providing legal representation to the client, because not doing your best to advocate their cause not only deprives them of a fundamental right, but undercuts the rule of law.</p><p>Right now, I'm reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-David-Herbert-Donald/dp/068482535X" title="amazon.com">this biography</a> [amazon.com] of one well-known lawyer: Abraham Lincoln. (More or less on the top of my list of great Americans.) The school textbook tagline "Honest Abe" actually reflects the reputation he had for extremely strong ethics &mdash; a reputation that he used to devastating effect in jury trials. In particular he was known for turning down lucrative cases when he believed the client had a poor chance of winning.</p><p>Obviously Lincoln was a lot more ethical than most 21st century attorneys. But even so, he had no qualms about <i>which</i> legal rights he was willing to defend. He was even known to offer his services to both sides in some big cases!</p><p>This even extended to an institution that he opposed from an early age, and that he's best known for bringing to an end: slavery. At the time, Illinois had a lot of commerce with neighboring slave states. Slavery was illegal in Illinois, and any slaveholder who brought a slave into the state effectively freed them. But this did not apply to slaves "in transit", which led to some skirting of the law by bringing in slaves for temporary work. Naturally this led to litigation over the freedom of these slaves, and Lincoln represented clients on both sides of the issue, despite his own well-known opposition to slavery-friendly laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Logically ( most ) lawyers do n't like to repersent rapists ( for example ) but they will when paid..Uh , you do understand the difference in law between somebody who " everybody knows " has committed rape ( or some other crime ) and somebody whose criminality has actually been established at trial ?
This distinction is not academic to a lot of people [ google.com ] .
And even people who are convicted or confessed criminals have the right to representation when being sentenced.Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them..And this is not a sign of their moral degeneracy .
No ethical professional accepts a job and then undercuts the client 's goals by substituting their own .
This is particularly important when you 're providing legal representation to the client , because not doing your best to advocate their cause not only deprives them of a fundamental right , but undercuts the rule of law.Right now , I 'm reading this biography [ amazon.com ] of one well-known lawyer : Abraham Lincoln .
( More or less on the top of my list of great Americans .
) The school textbook tagline " Honest Abe " actually reflects the reputation he had for extremely strong ethics    a reputation that he used to devastating effect in jury trials .
In particular he was known for turning down lucrative cases when he believed the client had a poor chance of winning.Obviously Lincoln was a lot more ethical than most 21st century attorneys .
But even so , he had no qualms about which legal rights he was willing to defend .
He was even known to offer his services to both sides in some big cases ! This even extended to an institution that he opposed from an early age , and that he 's best known for bringing to an end : slavery .
At the time , Illinois had a lot of commerce with neighboring slave states .
Slavery was illegal in Illinois , and any slaveholder who brought a slave into the state effectively freed them .
But this did not apply to slaves " in transit " , which led to some skirting of the law by bringing in slaves for temporary work .
Naturally this led to litigation over the freedom of these slaves , and Lincoln represented clients on both sides of the issue , despite his own well-known opposition to slavery-friendly laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid..Uh, you do understand the difference in law between somebody who "everybody knows" has committed rape (or some other crime) and somebody whose criminality has actually been established at trial?
This distinction is not academic to a lot of people [google.com].
And even people who are convicted or confessed criminals have the right to representation when being sentenced.Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them..And this is not a sign of their moral degeneracy.
No ethical professional accepts a job and then undercuts the client's goals by substituting their own.
This is particularly important when you're providing legal representation to the client, because not doing your best to advocate their cause not only deprives them of a fundamental right, but undercuts the rule of law.Right now, I'm reading this biography [amazon.com] of one well-known lawyer: Abraham Lincoln.
(More or less on the top of my list of great Americans.
) The school textbook tagline "Honest Abe" actually reflects the reputation he had for extremely strong ethics — a reputation that he used to devastating effect in jury trials.
In particular he was known for turning down lucrative cases when he believed the client had a poor chance of winning.Obviously Lincoln was a lot more ethical than most 21st century attorneys.
But even so, he had no qualms about which legal rights he was willing to defend.
He was even known to offer his services to both sides in some big cases!This even extended to an institution that he opposed from an early age, and that he's best known for bringing to an end: slavery.
At the time, Illinois had a lot of commerce with neighboring slave states.
Slavery was illegal in Illinois, and any slaveholder who brought a slave into the state effectively freed them.
But this did not apply to slaves "in transit", which led to some skirting of the law by bringing in slaves for temporary work.
Naturally this led to litigation over the freedom of these slaves, and Lincoln represented clients on both sides of the issue, despite his own well-known opposition to slavery-friendly laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185573</id>
	<title>this is 60atsex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243970760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>to happen. My I ever edid. It the same o4eration very own shitter,</htmltext>
<tokenext>to happen .
My I ever edid .
It the same o4eration very own shitter,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to happen.
My I ever edid.
It the same o4eration very own shitter,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184177</id>
	<title>Scribd? Really?</title>
	<author>superdana</author>
	<datestamp>1243964880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gah! Scribd! <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2008/2pet/6invit/2008-0448.pet.ami.inv.html" title="usdoj.gov" rel="nofollow">Here's a plain text link (which also has a link to a PDF).</a> [usdoj.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gah !
Scribd ! Here 's a plain text link ( which also has a link to a PDF ) .
[ usdoj.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gah!
Scribd! Here's a plain text link (which also has a link to a PDF).
[usdoj.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183809</id>
	<title>Is this change you can believe in?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243963260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh noes!  Maybe the situation is more complicated than the average slashdotter thinks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noes !
Maybe the situation is more complicated than the average slashdotter thinks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noes!
Maybe the situation is more complicated than the average slashdotter thinks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185063</id>
	<title>Why Attorneys are like Microsoft Employees....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243968480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do people assume that a former RIAA lawyer is not going to vigorously defend the American people?  I was going to go off on a rant and explain (for the billionth time) that lawyers have an ethical obligation to zealously advocate for their clients; that professional responsibility demands that lawyers follow the instructions of their clients (up to a carefully defined point); and that lawyers represent murderers and rapists all the time without personally endorsing those pursuits. <br> <br>But then I thought about all the people employed in the tech industry that have no love for the companies they work for, and are even openly dismissive of the products they once peddled.  If I wanted to diagnose the problems associated with a particular code or piece of software, who better to ask then the people who created the software's architecture?  The law is exactly the same way.  <br> <br>Moreover, these are exactly the right people to bring the RIAA to justice.  They better than anyone else understand the legal strengths and weaknesses of the RIAA's position.  Really people, do you think that these people sell their souls to the RIAA for all eternity?  They understand the tactics and how to fight them.  <br> <br>Someone might look at my current employment as an energy industry lawyer and say I am unqualified to take a job with the government regulating the energy industry.  These people are morons.  There are few people qualified to police an amazingly complicated industry than those who were once a part of it.  Barring corruption and direct conflict of interest checks (which are mandatory), if I were in charge of regulating an industry I would insist on hiring people with experience.  Why is this so hard to understand???</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people assume that a former RIAA lawyer is not going to vigorously defend the American people ?
I was going to go off on a rant and explain ( for the billionth time ) that lawyers have an ethical obligation to zealously advocate for their clients ; that professional responsibility demands that lawyers follow the instructions of their clients ( up to a carefully defined point ) ; and that lawyers represent murderers and rapists all the time without personally endorsing those pursuits .
But then I thought about all the people employed in the tech industry that have no love for the companies they work for , and are even openly dismissive of the products they once peddled .
If I wanted to diagnose the problems associated with a particular code or piece of software , who better to ask then the people who created the software 's architecture ?
The law is exactly the same way .
Moreover , these are exactly the right people to bring the RIAA to justice .
They better than anyone else understand the legal strengths and weaknesses of the RIAA 's position .
Really people , do you think that these people sell their souls to the RIAA for all eternity ?
They understand the tactics and how to fight them .
Someone might look at my current employment as an energy industry lawyer and say I am unqualified to take a job with the government regulating the energy industry .
These people are morons .
There are few people qualified to police an amazingly complicated industry than those who were once a part of it .
Barring corruption and direct conflict of interest checks ( which are mandatory ) , if I were in charge of regulating an industry I would insist on hiring people with experience .
Why is this so hard to understand ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people assume that a former RIAA lawyer is not going to vigorously defend the American people?
I was going to go off on a rant and explain (for the billionth time) that lawyers have an ethical obligation to zealously advocate for their clients; that professional responsibility demands that lawyers follow the instructions of their clients (up to a carefully defined point); and that lawyers represent murderers and rapists all the time without personally endorsing those pursuits.
But then I thought about all the people employed in the tech industry that have no love for the companies they work for, and are even openly dismissive of the products they once peddled.
If I wanted to diagnose the problems associated with a particular code or piece of software, who better to ask then the people who created the software's architecture?
The law is exactly the same way.
Moreover, these are exactly the right people to bring the RIAA to justice.
They better than anyone else understand the legal strengths and weaknesses of the RIAA's position.
Really people, do you think that these people sell their souls to the RIAA for all eternity?
They understand the tactics and how to fight them.
Someone might look at my current employment as an energy industry lawyer and say I am unqualified to take a job with the government regulating the energy industry.
These people are morons.
There are few people qualified to police an amazingly complicated industry than those who were once a part of it.
Barring corruption and direct conflict of interest checks (which are mandatory), if I were in charge of regulating an industry I would insist on hiring people with experience.
Why is this so hard to understand??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184261</id>
	<title>Deja vu?!?</title>
	<author>Sun.Jedi</author>
	<datestamp>1243965180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We just discussed this <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/31/1521236" title="slashdot.org">2 days ago</a> [slashdot.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>We just discussed this 2 days ago [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We just discussed this 2 days ago [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28188421</id>
	<title>Smoke and Mirrors prehaps</title>
	<author>Swimsc</author>
	<datestamp>1243939620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Long time reader 2nd time poster.  I may be wearing a tinfoil hat.

While these thoughts are not my own...Techdirt I believe.  Anyhow I tend to think the same way.

This judgment has the earmarks of being for fair use and on the side of the consumer, I with the above disagree.
It's staging for the future.  With this ruling its legal for the cable company's to store your DVR'd shows and movies on their networks.  That's fine and dandy.
This "service"  will be a convenience for most people that don't want another bulky set-top box in the living room or have to worry about it breaking, or being green whatever.  In fact I bet it becomes so convenient and user friendly that you have to be a retarded monkey not to figure it out.  In the meantime this will catch on, this FREE convenient service, till most people elect not to have the physical DVR device in the home or the cable company's just wont offer it as part of service anymore.

Few years down the road, we begin to see storage shortages (Yes storage is dirt cheap and getting cheaper) caps, quotas.  Bandwidth shortages to stream your Free service ect.  See where this is going..

Then the monthly charge.  Overage charges.  Maintenance charges for everyday your account is over the limit.. Use your imagination.  I see more over priced bullshit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Long time reader 2nd time poster .
I may be wearing a tinfoil hat .
While these thoughts are not my own...Techdirt I believe .
Anyhow I tend to think the same way .
This judgment has the earmarks of being for fair use and on the side of the consumer , I with the above disagree .
It 's staging for the future .
With this ruling its legal for the cable company 's to store your DVR 'd shows and movies on their networks .
That 's fine and dandy .
This " service " will be a convenience for most people that do n't want another bulky set-top box in the living room or have to worry about it breaking , or being green whatever .
In fact I bet it becomes so convenient and user friendly that you have to be a retarded monkey not to figure it out .
In the meantime this will catch on , this FREE convenient service , till most people elect not to have the physical DVR device in the home or the cable company 's just wont offer it as part of service anymore .
Few years down the road , we begin to see storage shortages ( Yes storage is dirt cheap and getting cheaper ) caps , quotas .
Bandwidth shortages to stream your Free service ect .
See where this is going. . Then the monthly charge .
Overage charges .
Maintenance charges for everyday your account is over the limit.. Use your imagination .
I see more over priced bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long time reader 2nd time poster.
I may be wearing a tinfoil hat.
While these thoughts are not my own...Techdirt I believe.
Anyhow I tend to think the same way.
This judgment has the earmarks of being for fair use and on the side of the consumer, I with the above disagree.
It's staging for the future.
With this ruling its legal for the cable company's to store your DVR'd shows and movies on their networks.
That's fine and dandy.
This "service"  will be a convenience for most people that don't want another bulky set-top box in the living room or have to worry about it breaking, or being green whatever.
In fact I bet it becomes so convenient and user friendly that you have to be a retarded monkey not to figure it out.
In the meantime this will catch on, this FREE convenient service, till most people elect not to have the physical DVR device in the home or the cable company's just wont offer it as part of service anymore.
Few years down the road, we begin to see storage shortages (Yes storage is dirt cheap and getting cheaper) caps, quotas.
Bandwidth shortages to stream your Free service ect.
See where this is going..

Then the monthly charge.
Overage charges.
Maintenance charges for everyday your account is over the limit.. Use your imagination.
I see more over priced bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185963</id>
	<title>Re:Why Attorneys are like Microsoft Employees....</title>
	<author>sgtrock</author>
	<datestamp>1243972380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Barring corruption and direct conflict of interest checks (which are mandatory), if I were in charge of regulating an industry I would insist on hiring people with experience. Why is this so hard to understand???</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, it's not hard to understand at all.  What you and the other apologists are forgetting is that in this particular instance, the lawyers who have been appointed to posts within the DoJ happen to come from firms who have consistently demonstrated a track record of unethical, immoral, and possibly illegal behavior.  Why on earth should we assume that they've all suddenly found the light and will never sin again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Barring corruption and direct conflict of interest checks ( which are mandatory ) , if I were in charge of regulating an industry I would insist on hiring people with experience .
Why is this so hard to understand ? ?
? Oh , it 's not hard to understand at all .
What you and the other apologists are forgetting is that in this particular instance , the lawyers who have been appointed to posts within the DoJ happen to come from firms who have consistently demonstrated a track record of unethical , immoral , and possibly illegal behavior .
Why on earth should we assume that they 've all suddenly found the light and will never sin again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barring corruption and direct conflict of interest checks (which are mandatory), if I were in charge of regulating an industry I would insist on hiring people with experience.
Why is this so hard to understand??
?Oh, it's not hard to understand at all.
What you and the other apologists are forgetting is that in this particular instance, the lawyers who have been appointed to posts within the DoJ happen to come from firms who have consistently demonstrated a track record of unethical, immoral, and possibly illegal behavior.
Why on earth should we assume that they've all suddenly found the light and will never sin again?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183817</id>
	<title>First cloud?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243963260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>blah blah first blah !</p><p>+5 insightful of course</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>blah blah first blah ! + 5 insightful of course</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blah blah first blah !+5 insightful of course</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184467</id>
	<title>Common Sense</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1243966140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt>suddenoutbreak...</tt> seems insufficient now. How about <tt>epidemicofcommonsense</tt>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>suddenoutbreak... seems insufficient now .
How about epidemicofcommonsense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suddenoutbreak... seems insufficient now.
How about epidemicofcommonsense?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185095</id>
	<title>Re:Thank goodness</title>
	<author>davester666</author>
	<datestamp>1243968600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, technically, they couldn't help it, as both side of the issue were doing it for their pocketbook.  Cable/service providers want you to rent DVR functionality from them, with the bonus of not having to send out expensive equipment to your home, while the content industry wants you to buy or rent another copy of that show you just happened to miss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , technically , they could n't help it , as both side of the issue were doing it for their pocketbook .
Cable/service providers want you to rent DVR functionality from them , with the bonus of not having to send out expensive equipment to your home , while the content industry wants you to buy or rent another copy of that show you just happened to miss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, technically, they couldn't help it, as both side of the issue were doing it for their pocketbook.
Cable/service providers want you to rent DVR functionality from them, with the bonus of not having to send out expensive equipment to your home, while the content industry wants you to buy or rent another copy of that show you just happened to miss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185203</id>
	<title>Re:Music locker?</title>
	<author>Cajun Hell</author>
	<datestamp>1243969020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other words, it means the same thing as "file server" except that it's <em>usually</em> remote (most people think of a file server as being closer/faster, i.e. on their LAN) and possibly crippled to only store one type of file (music).</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , it means the same thing as " file server " except that it 's usually remote ( most people think of a file server as being closer/faster , i.e .
on their LAN ) and possibly crippled to only store one type of file ( music ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, it means the same thing as "file server" except that it's usually remote (most people think of a file server as being closer/faster, i.e.
on their LAN) and possibly crippled to only store one type of file (music).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28186409</id>
	<title>Re:Smug Contempt of Lawyers</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1243974480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A lawyer who takes jobs on both sides of an ethical issue has either compromised their ethics for one client or the other, or they have no ethics at all.</p></div></blockquote><p>Or they have a different set of ethics than you.<br> <br>Really.  The my-ethics-are-the-only-valid-ethics theme is getting old.  <br> <br>Let's look at how a professional can ethically act for both sides in an ethical issue.  Perhaps, since the issue is complicated and not easily decided, the professional's ethics demand that he use his personal skills to the best of his ability, and by advocating on both sides, he is better able to bring about an equitable solution.<br> <br>Here's my biggest issue, though -- ethics are complicated, situations and problems are complicated.  Reducing them to a simple single ethical issue is often wildly inaccurate.  At the core of the issue, you weigh personal freedom as more important than the ability of a person to make a living from their creations, which have value to society.  I do not; however, I do value personal freedoms to a large extent.  So very easily, I could see myself on either "side" of this issue (to reduce it to sides, which is inaccurate).  And there is no ethical conflict there, as balance is required.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lawyer who takes jobs on both sides of an ethical issue has either compromised their ethics for one client or the other , or they have no ethics at all.Or they have a different set of ethics than you .
Really. The my-ethics-are-the-only-valid-ethics theme is getting old .
Let 's look at how a professional can ethically act for both sides in an ethical issue .
Perhaps , since the issue is complicated and not easily decided , the professional 's ethics demand that he use his personal skills to the best of his ability , and by advocating on both sides , he is better able to bring about an equitable solution .
Here 's my biggest issue , though -- ethics are complicated , situations and problems are complicated .
Reducing them to a simple single ethical issue is often wildly inaccurate .
At the core of the issue , you weigh personal freedom as more important than the ability of a person to make a living from their creations , which have value to society .
I do not ; however , I do value personal freedoms to a large extent .
So very easily , I could see myself on either " side " of this issue ( to reduce it to sides , which is inaccurate ) .
And there is no ethical conflict there , as balance is required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lawyer who takes jobs on both sides of an ethical issue has either compromised their ethics for one client or the other, or they have no ethics at all.Or they have a different set of ethics than you.
Really.  The my-ethics-are-the-only-valid-ethics theme is getting old.
Let's look at how a professional can ethically act for both sides in an ethical issue.
Perhaps, since the issue is complicated and not easily decided, the professional's ethics demand that he use his personal skills to the best of his ability, and by advocating on both sides, he is better able to bring about an equitable solution.
Here's my biggest issue, though -- ethics are complicated, situations and problems are complicated.
Reducing them to a simple single ethical issue is often wildly inaccurate.
At the core of the issue, you weigh personal freedom as more important than the ability of a person to make a living from their creations, which have value to society.
I do not; however, I do value personal freedoms to a large extent.
So very easily, I could see myself on either "side" of this issue (to reduce it to sides, which is inaccurate).
And there is no ethical conflict there, as balance is required.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185477</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28191737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28190435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28186409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28186819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28186961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_167217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_167217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_167217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_167217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185107
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185477
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28186961
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28186409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28190435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28186819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_167217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_167217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_167217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_167217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_167217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28191737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_167217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_167217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28185095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28183999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_167217.28184109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
