<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_02_199225</id>
	<title>Sotomayor's Position On Copyright Damages</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1243930380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Too Lazy to Login writes <i>"Wired reports that, based on her previous decisions, <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/high-court-nominee-adopts-riaa-stance/">Sonia Sotomayor will likely affirm high damages</a> (read: RIAA excessive) in cases where copyright claims are at issue. Good thing I'm not a betting man, because I'd have guessed the exact opposite."</i> We discussed the nominee's <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/29/1822251&amp;tid=123">cyberlaw record in general</a> last week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too Lazy to Login writes " Wired reports that , based on her previous decisions , Sonia Sotomayor will likely affirm high damages ( read : RIAA excessive ) in cases where copyright claims are at issue .
Good thing I 'm not a betting man , because I 'd have guessed the exact opposite .
" We discussed the nominee 's cyberlaw record in general last week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too Lazy to Login writes "Wired reports that, based on her previous decisions, Sonia Sotomayor will likely affirm high damages (read: RIAA excessive) in cases where copyright claims are at issue.
Good thing I'm not a betting man, because I'd have guessed the exact opposite.
" We discussed the nominee's cyberlaw record in general last week.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28213305</id>
	<title>Re:I'm just waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244145660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Question: would you have made the same "funny" remark about a male appointee?</p><p>If not, congrats - you're a misogynist. I bet you didn't even know it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : would you have made the same " funny " remark about a male appointee ? If not , congrats - you 're a misogynist .
I bet you did n't even know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: would you have made the same "funny" remark about a male appointee?If not, congrats - you're a misogynist.
I bet you didn't even know it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187525</id>
	<title>oh for god's sake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243935900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the richness of a latina's life experiences give them the ability to make better decisions than a white man</p></div></blockquote><p>Seriously, did you read the speech she gave from which that specific segment is taken?  If you actually read the sentence in context, it doesn't mean what every single right wing freak has claimed it does.  God, man, think for yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the richness of a latina 's life experiences give them the ability to make better decisions than a white manSeriously , did you read the speech she gave from which that specific segment is taken ?
If you actually read the sentence in context , it does n't mean what every single right wing freak has claimed it does .
God , man , think for yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the richness of a latina's life experiences give them the ability to make better decisions than a white manSeriously, did you read the speech she gave from which that specific segment is taken?
If you actually read the sentence in context, it doesn't mean what every single right wing freak has claimed it does.
God, man, think for yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187701</id>
	<title>Re:Based On One Case from 1996?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243936560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course not. There's a lot of blatant prejudice and paranoia too.</p></div><p>I agree.  Statements like this are blatantly prejudice: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life"</p><p>If you don't think that sounds prejudice, just replace "wise Latina woman" with "wise white woman" and replace "white male" with "black male" and tell me what you think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course not .
There 's a lot of blatant prejudice and paranoia too.I agree .
Statements like this are blatantly prejudice : " I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who has n't lived that life " If you do n't think that sounds prejudice , just replace " wise Latina woman " with " wise white woman " and replace " white male " with " black male " and tell me what you think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course not.
There's a lot of blatant prejudice and paranoia too.I agree.
Statements like this are blatantly prejudice: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life"If you don't think that sounds prejudice, just replace "wise Latina woman" with "wise white woman" and replace "white male" with "black male" and tell me what you think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189271</id>
	<title>Re:I feel like everything that can be wrong . . .</title>
	<author>2short</author>
	<datestamp>1243943760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>I assume 2) refers to the Ricci case, where she decided against the only Hispanic involved.  Don't know what that does to your theory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume 2 ) refers to the Ricci case , where she decided against the only Hispanic involved .
Do n't know what that does to your theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume 2) refers to the Ricci case, where she decided against the only Hispanic involved.
Don't know what that does to your theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188387</id>
	<title>Re:I feel like everything that can be wrong . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>have you ever been called the n-word? or boy?
<p>
have you ever been told the apartment is rented or the job is filled because of your accent, because of your name?
</p><p>
have you ever seen white women clutch their purses closer or walk faster because of the color of your skin?
</p><p>
but i think the whole point is that the circle of judges in America for a couple of hundred years have been economically elite white judges, that there is still a \_lot\_ of that going around, and that the Honorable J. Random Honkey is \_spectacularly\_ unqualified to know about how ordinary people live their lives, and that leads to unjust decisions.  think "steal a loaf of bread, go to jail -- steal a million dollars, stay home on house arrest" kinds of decisions because Judge J. Random can identify with the white collar criminal, probably graduated in the same class at Yale, and the bread stealer is just a dirty thief who needs a strong lesson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>have you ever been called the n-word ?
or boy ?
have you ever been told the apartment is rented or the job is filled because of your accent , because of your name ?
have you ever seen white women clutch their purses closer or walk faster because of the color of your skin ?
but i think the whole point is that the circle of judges in America for a couple of hundred years have been economically elite white judges , that there is still a \ _lot \ _ of that going around , and that the Honorable J. Random Honkey is \ _spectacularly \ _ unqualified to know about how ordinary people live their lives , and that leads to unjust decisions .
think " steal a loaf of bread , go to jail -- steal a million dollars , stay home on house arrest " kinds of decisions because Judge J. Random can identify with the white collar criminal , probably graduated in the same class at Yale , and the bread stealer is just a dirty thief who needs a strong lesson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have you ever been called the n-word?
or boy?
have you ever been told the apartment is rented or the job is filled because of your accent, because of your name?
have you ever seen white women clutch their purses closer or walk faster because of the color of your skin?
but i think the whole point is that the circle of judges in America for a couple of hundred years have been economically elite white judges, that there is still a \_lot\_ of that going around, and that the Honorable J. Random Honkey is \_spectacularly\_ unqualified to know about how ordinary people live their lives, and that leads to unjust decisions.
think "steal a loaf of bread, go to jail -- steal a million dollars, stay home on house arrest" kinds of decisions because Judge J. Random can identify with the white collar criminal, probably graduated in the same class at Yale, and the bread stealer is just a dirty thief who needs a strong lesson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187187</id>
	<title>In light of his other appointments (also read:**AA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243934640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>excessive), why?</p><blockquote><div><p>I'd have guessed the exact opposite</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>excessive ) , why ? I 'd have guessed the exact opposite</tokentext>
<sentencetext>excessive), why?I'd have guessed the exact opposite
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188105</id>
	<title>Re:I'm just waiting for</title>
	<author>crypTeX</author>
	<datestamp>1243938180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who modded this Funny?  She's a judge, for crying out loud.  If she were trying to be famous for being rich that would be one thing, but come on...  I don't want to see her confirmed, but this is ridiculous.  There is nothing to like about her politics, er, I mean, judicial record, but why would anyone hope she had an angry ex with a sex tape?  If people were thinking that justice was supposed to be blind, that the constitution has a text that is meant to be followed and amended by the will of the people, and if anyone thought that the commerce clause was meant to give Congress the power to regulate interstate trade, we wouldn't even have to think about putting her on the bench.  To think that people need to hope she has a sex tape that would get her excluded (though it shouldn't) is part of the problem.  There are so many good reasons to keep her out, let's not hope for the bad ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who modded this Funny ?
She 's a judge , for crying out loud .
If she were trying to be famous for being rich that would be one thing , but come on... I do n't want to see her confirmed , but this is ridiculous .
There is nothing to like about her politics , er , I mean , judicial record , but why would anyone hope she had an angry ex with a sex tape ?
If people were thinking that justice was supposed to be blind , that the constitution has a text that is meant to be followed and amended by the will of the people , and if anyone thought that the commerce clause was meant to give Congress the power to regulate interstate trade , we would n't even have to think about putting her on the bench .
To think that people need to hope she has a sex tape that would get her excluded ( though it should n't ) is part of the problem .
There are so many good reasons to keep her out , let 's not hope for the bad ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who modded this Funny?
She's a judge, for crying out loud.
If she were trying to be famous for being rich that would be one thing, but come on...  I don't want to see her confirmed, but this is ridiculous.
There is nothing to like about her politics, er, I mean, judicial record, but why would anyone hope she had an angry ex with a sex tape?
If people were thinking that justice was supposed to be blind, that the constitution has a text that is meant to be followed and amended by the will of the people, and if anyone thought that the commerce clause was meant to give Congress the power to regulate interstate trade, we wouldn't even have to think about putting her on the bench.
To think that people need to hope she has a sex tape that would get her excluded (though it shouldn't) is part of the problem.
There are so many good reasons to keep her out, let's not hope for the bad ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189113</id>
	<title>Re:Revolution</title>
	<author>FencingLion</author>
	<datestamp>1243942980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And replace them with an even more corrupt revolutionary regime? No thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And replace them with an even more corrupt revolutionary regime ?
No thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And replace them with an even more corrupt revolutionary regime?
No thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187537</id>
	<title>Re:I feel like everything that can be wrong . . .</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1243935960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THIS.</p><p>+1</p><p>However, people have traded freedom for security, and will take what they get.  Fortunately, by the time the country goes down the socialist crapper, I will be dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS. + 1However , people have traded freedom for security , and will take what they get .
Fortunately , by the time the country goes down the socialist crapper , I will be dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THIS.+1However, people have traded freedom for security, and will take what they get.
Fortunately, by the time the country goes down the socialist crapper, I will be dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187349</id>
	<title>Really?  Your suprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243935240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why on earth would you think the direct opposite!?

Politicians are politicians.  If he is willing to give the title of Secretary of Defense to Hillary Clinton then this should not come as any surprise that him and his nominee both support the RIAA and receive campaing donations from the RIAA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on earth would you think the direct opposite ! ?
Politicians are politicians .
If he is willing to give the title of Secretary of Defense to Hillary Clinton then this should not come as any surprise that him and his nominee both support the RIAA and receive campaing donations from the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on earth would you think the direct opposite!?
Politicians are politicians.
If he is willing to give the title of Secretary of Defense to Hillary Clinton then this should not come as any surprise that him and his nominee both support the RIAA and receive campaing donations from the RIAA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187125</id>
	<title>she's a cunt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243934340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fucking twatfaced cunt, fuck her and her humble beginnigs to rising to suck the RIAA's cock</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fucking twatfaced cunt , fuck her and her humble beginnigs to rising to suck the RIAA 's cock</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fucking twatfaced cunt, fuck her and her humble beginnigs to rising to suck the RIAA's cock</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187835</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1243936980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more they tighten their grip, the more star systems will slip through their fingers.</p><p>er... I mean pirates!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more they tighten their grip , the more star systems will slip through their fingers.er... I mean pirates !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more they tighten their grip, the more star systems will slip through their fingers.er... I mean pirates!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187935</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA</title>
	<author>Dripdry</author>
	<datestamp>1243937460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I need to pipe up here:</p><p>Sell live shows. Right after the show is done press the shows and sell them to ticket holders. There. You have something that is scarce and that, if the band was good or people had a great time, others want to buy!</p><p>Hell, record it in binaural sound! It will feel like you are *at* the show! It's really easy, frankly.</p><p>Let the RIAA charge a small fee on the recording or something, I don't know. Everyone gets what they want and there's profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I need to pipe up here : Sell live shows .
Right after the show is done press the shows and sell them to ticket holders .
There. You have something that is scarce and that , if the band was good or people had a great time , others want to buy ! Hell , record it in binaural sound !
It will feel like you are * at * the show !
It 's really easy , frankly.Let the RIAA charge a small fee on the recording or something , I do n't know .
Everyone gets what they want and there 's profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I need to pipe up here:Sell live shows.
Right after the show is done press the shows and sell them to ticket holders.
There. You have something that is scarce and that, if the band was good or people had a great time, others want to buy!Hell, record it in binaural sound!
It will feel like you are *at* the show!
It's really easy, frankly.Let the RIAA charge a small fee on the recording or something, I don't know.
Everyone gets what they want and there's profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28190989</id>
	<title>Re:Stop it!</title>
	<author>Intrinsic</author>
	<datestamp>1243955880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing morally wrong with making copies of a copy. You dont have enough information to even have this discussion because if you did, you wouldn't be talking in terms of right and wrong. copyright infringement law was designed to prevent large organizations from taking a individuals work and a profiting from it. If you think this same logic applies to big business you dont understand the dynamics, its that simple.</p><p>Large entities don't need the same rights as individuals. Copyright should not extend to them at all.<br>It should only extend to the individual as how it was intended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing morally wrong with making copies of a copy .
You dont have enough information to even have this discussion because if you did , you would n't be talking in terms of right and wrong .
copyright infringement law was designed to prevent large organizations from taking a individuals work and a profiting from it .
If you think this same logic applies to big business you dont understand the dynamics , its that simple.Large entities do n't need the same rights as individuals .
Copyright should not extend to them at all.It should only extend to the individual as how it was intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing morally wrong with making copies of a copy.
You dont have enough information to even have this discussion because if you did, you wouldn't be talking in terms of right and wrong.
copyright infringement law was designed to prevent large organizations from taking a individuals work and a profiting from it.
If you think this same logic applies to big business you dont understand the dynamics, its that simple.Large entities don't need the same rights as individuals.
Copyright should not extend to them at all.It should only extend to the individual as how it was intended.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187503</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1243935840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The good news is I can completely ignore Hollywood &amp; the RIAA &amp; have been doing so for almost a decade.  They need us waaaaay more than we need them.  We just have to show them that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The good news is I can completely ignore Hollywood &amp; the RIAA &amp; have been doing so for almost a decade .
They need us waaaaay more than we need them .
We just have to show them that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good news is I can completely ignore Hollywood &amp; the RIAA &amp; have been doing so for almost a decade.
They need us waaaaay more than we need them.
We just have to show them that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187101</id>
	<title>always?</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1243934160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would she favor high copyright damages against latino female file-sharers?</p><p>(sorry, had to go there. you may now release the hounds.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would she favor high copyright damages against latino female file-sharers ?
( sorry , had to go there .
you may now release the hounds .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would she favor high copyright damages against latino female file-sharers?
(sorry, had to go there.
you may now release the hounds.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187273</id>
	<title>Re:Based On One Case from 1996?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243934940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are we basing our image of this woman off of one action and one statement?</p> </div><p>Of course not. There's a lot of blatant prejudice and paranoia too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we basing our image of this woman off of one action and one statement ?
Of course not .
There 's a lot of blatant prejudice and paranoia too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we basing our image of this woman off of one action and one statement?
Of course not.
There's a lot of blatant prejudice and paranoia too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187055</id>
	<title>Well, Obama is nominating Sotomayor...</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1243934040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What did you expect given Barack Obama's political philosophy and how he's acted in office?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What did you expect given Barack Obama 's political philosophy and how he 's acted in office ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did you expect given Barack Obama's political philosophy and how he's acted in office?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187605</id>
	<title>Re:Revolution</title>
	<author>ZOmegaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1243936260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're in my district, vote for me.  If you're not, tell others to vote for me, and run in your district.  I've gotten fed up enough to actually do something.  How about you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're in my district , vote for me .
If you 're not , tell others to vote for me , and run in your district .
I 've gotten fed up enough to actually do something .
How about you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're in my district, vote for me.
If you're not, tell others to vote for me, and run in your district.
I've gotten fed up enough to actually do something.
How about you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188425</id>
	<title>If you didn't vote libertarian you ASKED for this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imaginary property is unconstitutionally enforced by the federal government, leading to a government granted monopolies such as Microsoft, the MPAA and the RIAA.  The Republicrats and Democans both have historically supported those government granted monopolies by passing more legislation to protect these monopolies.</p><p>--<br>A vote against a Libertarian candidate is<br>a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imaginary property is unconstitutionally enforced by the federal government , leading to a government granted monopolies such as Microsoft , the MPAA and the RIAA .
The Republicrats and Democans both have historically supported those government granted monopolies by passing more legislation to protect these monopolies.--A vote against a Libertarian candidate isa vote to abolish the Constitution itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imaginary property is unconstitutionally enforced by the federal government, leading to a government granted monopolies such as Microsoft, the MPAA and the RIAA.
The Republicrats and Democans both have historically supported those government granted monopolies by passing more legislation to protect these monopolies.--A vote against a Libertarian candidate isa vote to abolish the Constitution itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188967</id>
	<title>Because punishment is not bad enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243942140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, why don't we just give them the death penalty?  After cybereal thinks they are self-entitled jackasses...  The punishment is too much for the crime and the crime is only slightly immoral.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , why do n't we just give them the death penalty ?
After cybereal thinks they are self-entitled jackasses... The punishment is too much for the crime and the crime is only slightly immoral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, why don't we just give them the death penalty?
After cybereal thinks they are self-entitled jackasses...  The punishment is too much for the crime and the crime is only slightly immoral.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188865</id>
	<title>Should be re electable</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1243941540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course in real democracies supreme court judges get replaced at regular intervals instead of getting appointed for life.</p><p>But if she votes for the establishment, then that's hardly surprising she is a product of it after all isn't she.</p><p>Copyright is theft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course in real democracies supreme court judges get replaced at regular intervals instead of getting appointed for life.But if she votes for the establishment , then that 's hardly surprising she is a product of it after all is n't she.Copyright is theft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course in real democracies supreme court judges get replaced at regular intervals instead of getting appointed for life.But if she votes for the establishment, then that's hardly surprising she is a product of it after all isn't she.Copyright is theft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28190179</id>
	<title>You reap what you sow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243949340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suckers.</p><p>Pelosi's response to Tiananmen is all of a sudden that much more entertaining.</p><p>Rot in your own filth,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suckers.Pelosi 's response to Tiananmen is all of a sudden that much more entertaining.Rot in your own filth , / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suckers.Pelosi's response to Tiananmen is all of a sudden that much more entertaining.Rot in your own filth, /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188645</id>
	<title>Re:I feel like everything that can be wrong . . .</title>
	<author>x\_IamSpartacus\_x</author>
	<datestamp>1243940520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll start this off with the admission that I am a white, conservative, Christian, heterosexual male (some times referred to as "the source of all the world's problems"). When I read this summary I was spurred to go look into Sotamayor's previous rulings and how that might effect her future ones. I have heard the talking heads on both sides (I have a 1 hour drive to work each day and mostly listen to NPR... meh... it's something to listen to) and hadn't come to a conclusion about my opinion of her. I think the Federal Supreme Court is currently the most powerful entity in the USA, all the more so when it's prospective members have been quoted (jokingly or not) saying that policy is made from the bench.
<br> <br>
All that being said, I was hesitant to hold a specific opinion on her appointment to the FSC. So I did some research... WIKIPEDIA FTW!!!
<br> <br>
It turns out (following the wikipedia links and using Google when they ran out for extra source material) that I... usually agreed with her. She seems to hold strictly to the letter of the law and her interpretations of it seem to be in line with what mine would usually be. She held up a man's rights to say racist, bigoted, ugly things, she dissented in a ruling that upheld a juvenile detention center's right to strip search young girls (convicted of no crime, being held in suspicion of committing no crime), and she upheld the rights of the NFL to set it's own rules for who can play in the league saying "We follow the Supreme Court's lead in declining to 'fashion an antitrust exemption [so as to give] additional advantages to professional football players<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that transport workers, coal miners, or meat packers would not enjoy" (though wikipedia says there is a citation needed for that quote). There are other rulings listed that I agree with, and some that I don't, but as a whole I find that I generally agree with what I've read about her.
<br> <br>
She's right, by the way, in saying that experience and culture influence judgment. It would be nice if it didn't but that is just not possible in people's brains. We are not computers. We are living, breathing, feeling, emotional, prejudiced, loving, bigoted, beings. We cannot get around that. To all those who don't like that idea, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING 9 PEOPLE ON THE BENCH IS FOR THIS VERY REASON. We cannot trust ONE person to make the final judgment because that person will see an issue through their own clouded perspective. So we add a reasonable amount of others and appoint those who have shown that they push through their cloudy view more than most... and hope for the best.
<br> <br>
The system is inherently flawed because it involves people. We put the best people up there and hope that it has as few flaws as possible.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll start this off with the admission that I am a white , conservative , Christian , heterosexual male ( some times referred to as " the source of all the world 's problems " ) .
When I read this summary I was spurred to go look into Sotamayor 's previous rulings and how that might effect her future ones .
I have heard the talking heads on both sides ( I have a 1 hour drive to work each day and mostly listen to NPR... meh... it 's something to listen to ) and had n't come to a conclusion about my opinion of her .
I think the Federal Supreme Court is currently the most powerful entity in the USA , all the more so when it 's prospective members have been quoted ( jokingly or not ) saying that policy is made from the bench .
All that being said , I was hesitant to hold a specific opinion on her appointment to the FSC .
So I did some research... WIKIPEDIA FTW ! ! !
It turns out ( following the wikipedia links and using Google when they ran out for extra source material ) that I... usually agreed with her .
She seems to hold strictly to the letter of the law and her interpretations of it seem to be in line with what mine would usually be .
She held up a man 's rights to say racist , bigoted , ugly things , she dissented in a ruling that upheld a juvenile detention center 's right to strip search young girls ( convicted of no crime , being held in suspicion of committing no crime ) , and she upheld the rights of the NFL to set it 's own rules for who can play in the league saying " We follow the Supreme Court 's lead in declining to 'fashion an antitrust exemption [ so as to give ] additional advantages to professional football players ... that transport workers , coal miners , or meat packers would not enjoy " ( though wikipedia says there is a citation needed for that quote ) .
There are other rulings listed that I agree with , and some that I do n't , but as a whole I find that I generally agree with what I 've read about her .
She 's right , by the way , in saying that experience and culture influence judgment .
It would be nice if it did n't but that is just not possible in people 's brains .
We are not computers .
We are living , breathing , feeling , emotional , prejudiced , loving , bigoted , beings .
We can not get around that .
To all those who do n't like that idea , THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING 9 PEOPLE ON THE BENCH IS FOR THIS VERY REASON .
We can not trust ONE person to make the final judgment because that person will see an issue through their own clouded perspective .
So we add a reasonable amount of others and appoint those who have shown that they push through their cloudy view more than most... and hope for the best .
The system is inherently flawed because it involves people .
We put the best people up there and hope that it has as few flaws as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll start this off with the admission that I am a white, conservative, Christian, heterosexual male (some times referred to as "the source of all the world's problems").
When I read this summary I was spurred to go look into Sotamayor's previous rulings and how that might effect her future ones.
I have heard the talking heads on both sides (I have a 1 hour drive to work each day and mostly listen to NPR... meh... it's something to listen to) and hadn't come to a conclusion about my opinion of her.
I think the Federal Supreme Court is currently the most powerful entity in the USA, all the more so when it's prospective members have been quoted (jokingly or not) saying that policy is made from the bench.
All that being said, I was hesitant to hold a specific opinion on her appointment to the FSC.
So I did some research... WIKIPEDIA FTW!!!
It turns out (following the wikipedia links and using Google when they ran out for extra source material) that I... usually agreed with her.
She seems to hold strictly to the letter of the law and her interpretations of it seem to be in line with what mine would usually be.
She held up a man's rights to say racist, bigoted, ugly things, she dissented in a ruling that upheld a juvenile detention center's right to strip search young girls (convicted of no crime, being held in suspicion of committing no crime), and she upheld the rights of the NFL to set it's own rules for who can play in the league saying "We follow the Supreme Court's lead in declining to 'fashion an antitrust exemption [so as to give] additional advantages to professional football players ... that transport workers, coal miners, or meat packers would not enjoy" (though wikipedia says there is a citation needed for that quote).
There are other rulings listed that I agree with, and some that I don't, but as a whole I find that I generally agree with what I've read about her.
She's right, by the way, in saying that experience and culture influence judgment.
It would be nice if it didn't but that is just not possible in people's brains.
We are not computers.
We are living, breathing, feeling, emotional, prejudiced, loving, bigoted, beings.
We cannot get around that.
To all those who don't like that idea, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING 9 PEOPLE ON THE BENCH IS FOR THIS VERY REASON.
We cannot trust ONE person to make the final judgment because that person will see an issue through their own clouded perspective.
So we add a reasonable amount of others and appoint those who have shown that they push through their cloudy view more than most... and hope for the best.
The system is inherently flawed because it involves people.
We put the best people up there and hope that it has as few flaws as possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28195205</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise</title>
	<author>EraserMouseMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244041440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reps &amp; Dems alike know where their bread is buttered.The media got McCain nominated. McCain was the easiest target of the Rep nominees to defeat. Then the media went gaga over BHO and ignored and squelched any and all flaws or red flags.Now we're seeing the real BHO. How come we didn't see this coming? Answer: The Media didn't want you to.
<br> <br>
You voted for him. But it's completely understandable that you would do otherwise now that you are starting to quesetion if you really knew who BHO was. Still trying to figure out who BHO really is? As he recently (May 27) said at a star-studded Hollywood fundraiser, "You ain't seen nothing yet!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reps &amp; Dems alike know where their bread is buttered.The media got McCain nominated .
McCain was the easiest target of the Rep nominees to defeat .
Then the media went gaga over BHO and ignored and squelched any and all flaws or red flags.Now we 're seeing the real BHO .
How come we did n't see this coming ?
Answer : The Media did n't want you to .
You voted for him .
But it 's completely understandable that you would do otherwise now that you are starting to quesetion if you really knew who BHO was .
Still trying to figure out who BHO really is ?
As he recently ( May 27 ) said at a star-studded Hollywood fundraiser , " You ai n't seen nothing yet !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reps &amp; Dems alike know where their bread is buttered.The media got McCain nominated.
McCain was the easiest target of the Rep nominees to defeat.
Then the media went gaga over BHO and ignored and squelched any and all flaws or red flags.Now we're seeing the real BHO.
How come we didn't see this coming?
Answer: The Media didn't want you to.
You voted for him.
But it's completely understandable that you would do otherwise now that you are starting to quesetion if you really knew who BHO was.
Still trying to figure out who BHO really is?
As he recently (May 27) said at a star-studded Hollywood fundraiser, "You ain't seen nothing yet!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187515</id>
	<title>I'm just waiting for</title>
	<author>Dyinobal</author>
	<datestamp>1243935900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just waiting for  Sotomayor's Paris Hilton style homemade porn video to be released. I hope that long forgotten boyfriend held onto that tape they made that one rather forgetful night.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just waiting for Sotomayor 's Paris Hilton style homemade porn video to be released .
I hope that long forgotten boyfriend held onto that tape they made that one rather forgetful night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just waiting for  Sotomayor's Paris Hilton style homemade porn video to be released.
I hope that long forgotten boyfriend held onto that tape they made that one rather forgetful night.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188761</id>
	<title>The Moving Center</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1243941060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, if people dont buy RIAA music and goto MPAA films they will soon run out of money.<br><br>No AWARE new artist(s) need to get screwed by them again, The front game is OVER. The Internet, and with it (almost) free publishing and (absolutely) free publicity emerged into the world.<br><br>The MPAA &amp; RIAA cannot pack the genie back in the bottle, and their business model is defunct, they will go bust on their own if you simply excercise your freedom and ignore them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , if people dont buy RIAA music and goto MPAA films they will soon run out of money.No AWARE new artist ( s ) need to get screwed by them again , The front game is OVER .
The Internet , and with it ( almost ) free publishing and ( absolutely ) free publicity emerged into the world.The MPAA &amp; RIAA can not pack the genie back in the bottle , and their business model is defunct , they will go bust on their own if you simply excercise your freedom and ignore them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, if people dont buy RIAA music and goto MPAA films they will soon run out of money.No AWARE new artist(s) need to get screwed by them again, The front game is OVER.
The Internet, and with it (almost) free publishing and (absolutely) free publicity emerged into the world.The MPAA &amp; RIAA cannot pack the genie back in the bottle, and their business model is defunct, they will go bust on their own if you simply excercise your freedom and ignore them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28201163</id>
	<title>Morons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244023260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The slashdot crowd is all Democrat sympathizers, incapable of following logical chains of thought when their emotions come into play.<br>'If you aren't a Liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're still a liberal as an adult, you have no brain.'<br>But of course you'll deny that. Shocking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The slashdot crowd is all Democrat sympathizers , incapable of following logical chains of thought when their emotions come into play .
'If you are n't a Liberal when you 're young , you have no heart .
If you 're still a liberal as an adult , you have no brain .
'But of course you 'll deny that .
Shocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The slashdot crowd is all Democrat sympathizers, incapable of following logical chains of thought when their emotions come into play.
'If you aren't a Liberal when you're young, you have no heart.
If you're still a liberal as an adult, you have no brain.
'But of course you'll deny that.
Shocking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187767</id>
	<title>That decision tells us little</title>
	<author>snitty</author>
	<datestamp>1243936860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The folks at TechnicallyLegal (disclaimer, I'm a writer and podcaster there) wrote up a post as to why her decision in the copyright case will have little bearing on the outcome of the RIAA cases. And why her reasoning there isn't really indicitive of what her reasoning may be in those cases.</p><p><a href="http://www.technicallylegal.org/de-fud-sotomayors-stance-on-copyright-infringement/" title="technicallylegal.org">http://www.technicallylegal.org/de-fud-sotomayors-stance-on-copyright-infringement/</a> [technicallylegal.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The folks at TechnicallyLegal ( disclaimer , I 'm a writer and podcaster there ) wrote up a post as to why her decision in the copyright case will have little bearing on the outcome of the RIAA cases .
And why her reasoning there is n't really indicitive of what her reasoning may be in those cases.http : //www.technicallylegal.org/de-fud-sotomayors-stance-on-copyright-infringement/ [ technicallylegal.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The folks at TechnicallyLegal (disclaimer, I'm a writer and podcaster there) wrote up a post as to why her decision in the copyright case will have little bearing on the outcome of the RIAA cases.
And why her reasoning there isn't really indicitive of what her reasoning may be in those cases.http://www.technicallylegal.org/de-fud-sotomayors-stance-on-copyright-infringement/ [technicallylegal.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28190107</id>
	<title>Re:I feel like everything that can be wrong . . .</title>
	<author>georgenh16</author>
	<datestamp>1243948800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good points.
<br> <br>
I'm a conservative, and from what I've heard she's awful - but your examples give me a more complete perspective of her record. Hopefully she isn't as bad as she seems when I listen to talk radio.
<br> <br>
That said, I'll point out two things:
<br> <br>
1 - "I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations" This implies she thinks she is incapable of (or at least limited in) rendering decisions apart from her "experiences", presumably those relevant to being a latina woman, given the rest of the speech.
<br> <br>
2 - As for taking a fragment of a speech and running with it, sometimes this can be very wrong as you suggest. But sometimes, (and as I believe with her comments) there is no context in which a quote can redeem itself. There is no context that makes it not racist to say that a latina woman would make better judicial decisions than a white male.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good points .
I 'm a conservative , and from what I 've heard she 's awful - but your examples give me a more complete perspective of her record .
Hopefully she is n't as bad as she seems when I listen to talk radio .
That said , I 'll point out two things : 1 - " I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations " This implies she thinks she is incapable of ( or at least limited in ) rendering decisions apart from her " experiences " , presumably those relevant to being a latina woman , given the rest of the speech .
2 - As for taking a fragment of a speech and running with it , sometimes this can be very wrong as you suggest .
But sometimes , ( and as I believe with her comments ) there is no context in which a quote can redeem itself .
There is no context that makes it not racist to say that a latina woman would make better judicial decisions than a white male .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good points.
I'm a conservative, and from what I've heard she's awful - but your examples give me a more complete perspective of her record.
Hopefully she isn't as bad as she seems when I listen to talk radio.
That said, I'll point out two things:
 
1 - "I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations" This implies she thinks she is incapable of (or at least limited in) rendering decisions apart from her "experiences", presumably those relevant to being a latina woman, given the rest of the speech.
2 - As for taking a fragment of a speech and running with it, sometimes this can be very wrong as you suggest.
But sometimes, (and as I believe with her comments) there is no context in which a quote can redeem itself.
There is no context that makes it not racist to say that a latina woman would make better judicial decisions than a white male.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187603</id>
	<title>Re:Based On One Case from 1996?</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1243936260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Wired reports that, based on her previous decisions<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Huh, that's odd, I only found the article to list one case -- the TopRank suing the host of a tavern in 1996. And the statement she added as:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"A willful infringement, which the magistrate judge found, combined with a willful default, however, warrant an award greater and more significant than one which corresponds so closely to an estimated loss to the plaintiff,"</p></div><p>Are there more decisions I missed? Are we basing our image of this woman off of one action and one statement?

It's not a good indication but it's hardly conclusive. Things have changed with the advent of the internet since then. Here's to hoping, I guess, but I think we're being a bit unfair and too hasty.</p></div><p>eldavojohn, you are quite right to be skeptical of the Wired article. In fact, there is no basis for the author to have drawn the conclusion he did. The Top Rank case is a garden variety, 'bar and tavern' case, in which the statutory damages awarded are usually 2 to 4 times the actual damages. The Magistrate's decision was below the normal range, despite his finding of wilfulness. Judge Sotomayor merely raised the award to within the typical range. It appears that she awarded between 2 and 3 times the actual damages.<br> <br>In RIAA-land that would translate to from 70 cents to $1.00, as opposed to from $750 to $150,000.<br> <br>No reason in the world to think Judge Sotomayor would disregard a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent and dance to the RIAA's tune.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wired reports that , based on her previous decisions ...Huh , that 's odd , I only found the article to list one case -- the TopRank suing the host of a tavern in 1996 .
And the statement she added as : " A willful infringement , which the magistrate judge found , combined with a willful default , however , warrant an award greater and more significant than one which corresponds so closely to an estimated loss to the plaintiff , " Are there more decisions I missed ?
Are we basing our image of this woman off of one action and one statement ?
It 's not a good indication but it 's hardly conclusive .
Things have changed with the advent of the internet since then .
Here 's to hoping , I guess , but I think we 're being a bit unfair and too hasty.eldavojohn , you are quite right to be skeptical of the Wired article .
In fact , there is no basis for the author to have drawn the conclusion he did .
The Top Rank case is a garden variety , 'bar and tavern ' case , in which the statutory damages awarded are usually 2 to 4 times the actual damages .
The Magistrate 's decision was below the normal range , despite his finding of wilfulness .
Judge Sotomayor merely raised the award to within the typical range .
It appears that she awarded between 2 and 3 times the actual damages .
In RIAA-land that would translate to from 70 cents to $ 1.00 , as opposed to from $ 750 to $ 150,000 .
No reason in the world to think Judge Sotomayor would disregard a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent and dance to the RIAA 's tune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wired reports that, based on her previous decisions ...Huh, that's odd, I only found the article to list one case -- the TopRank suing the host of a tavern in 1996.
And the statement she added as:"A willful infringement, which the magistrate judge found, combined with a willful default, however, warrant an award greater and more significant than one which corresponds so closely to an estimated loss to the plaintiff,"Are there more decisions I missed?
Are we basing our image of this woman off of one action and one statement?
It's not a good indication but it's hardly conclusive.
Things have changed with the advent of the internet since then.
Here's to hoping, I guess, but I think we're being a bit unfair and too hasty.eldavojohn, you are quite right to be skeptical of the Wired article.
In fact, there is no basis for the author to have drawn the conclusion he did.
The Top Rank case is a garden variety, 'bar and tavern' case, in which the statutory damages awarded are usually 2 to 4 times the actual damages.
The Magistrate's decision was below the normal range, despite his finding of wilfulness.
Judge Sotomayor merely raised the award to within the typical range.
It appears that she awarded between 2 and 3 times the actual damages.
In RIAA-land that would translate to from 70 cents to $1.00, as opposed to from $750 to $150,000.
No reason in the world to think Judge Sotomayor would disregard a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent and dance to the RIAA's tune.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187197</id>
	<title>RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243934640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I reckon RIAA and those persuaded by their arguments will continue to try to tighten their grip as much as they can wherever they can. Whether or not Sotomayor will decide in ways that favour RIAA or not is something I hesitate to speculate about. However if people want their government representatives and judges to understand their reservations about RIAA's way of doing business they have to continue to speak up; not only to protest but also to try and find solutions to the situation we are at now.<br> <br> What should be the principles behind music and movie distribution? I for one would hope for something that those purchasing and creating such material would both find acceptable. Though it is hard for me to say what that would be. At the moment what we have are many reacting to what they see as negative trends, and some saying so in well argued ways, but as long as RIAA can claim even an inch of legitimate concern for the artists and their rights they will continue to resist reforms they cant adequately, in their eyes, influence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I reckon RIAA and those persuaded by their arguments will continue to try to tighten their grip as much as they can wherever they can .
Whether or not Sotomayor will decide in ways that favour RIAA or not is something I hesitate to speculate about .
However if people want their government representatives and judges to understand their reservations about RIAA 's way of doing business they have to continue to speak up ; not only to protest but also to try and find solutions to the situation we are at now .
What should be the principles behind music and movie distribution ?
I for one would hope for something that those purchasing and creating such material would both find acceptable .
Though it is hard for me to say what that would be .
At the moment what we have are many reacting to what they see as negative trends , and some saying so in well argued ways , but as long as RIAA can claim even an inch of legitimate concern for the artists and their rights they will continue to resist reforms they cant adequately , in their eyes , influence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I reckon RIAA and those persuaded by their arguments will continue to try to tighten their grip as much as they can wherever they can.
Whether or not Sotomayor will decide in ways that favour RIAA or not is something I hesitate to speculate about.
However if people want their government representatives and judges to understand their reservations about RIAA's way of doing business they have to continue to speak up; not only to protest but also to try and find solutions to the situation we are at now.
What should be the principles behind music and movie distribution?
I for one would hope for something that those purchasing and creating such material would both find acceptable.
Though it is hard for me to say what that would be.
At the moment what we have are many reacting to what they see as negative trends, and some saying so in well argued ways, but as long as RIAA can claim even an inch of legitimate concern for the artists and their rights they will continue to resist reforms they cant adequately, in their eyes, influence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28191821</id>
	<title>Re:Stop it!</title>
	<author>twostix</author>
	<datestamp>1243963560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You ever sung Happy Birthday at a party?</p><p>I hope a highly "moral and ethical" self righteous individual such as your self paid the required parties for the privilege of doing so, as that song is still under copyright.</p><p>Oh...you didn't. You and your friends STOLE someone elses hard work and used it for your own benefit without paying.  Well then you're no better than anyone else so get off your high horse thief.</p><p>*Cue the hypocritical legal hand wringing "but-but fair use! Not a *real* public performance!!11" Sorry, tell it to a judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ever sung Happy Birthday at a party ? I hope a highly " moral and ethical " self righteous individual such as your self paid the required parties for the privilege of doing so , as that song is still under copyright.Oh...you did n't .
You and your friends STOLE someone elses hard work and used it for your own benefit without paying .
Well then you 're no better than anyone else so get off your high horse thief .
* Cue the hypocritical legal hand wringing " but-but fair use !
Not a * real * public performance !
! 11 " Sorry , tell it to a judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You ever sung Happy Birthday at a party?I hope a highly "moral and ethical" self righteous individual such as your self paid the required parties for the privilege of doing so, as that song is still under copyright.Oh...you didn't.
You and your friends STOLE someone elses hard work and used it for your own benefit without paying.
Well then you're no better than anyone else so get off your high horse thief.
*Cue the hypocritical legal hand wringing "but-but fair use!
Not a *real* public performance!
!11" Sorry, tell it to a judge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187173</id>
	<title>No surprise</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1243934580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One more time:</p><p>Republicans:  Oil and gas</p><p>Democrats:    Hollywood, the movies and recording industry</p><p>\_Never\_ be surprised at Democratic support for DRM, the RIAA or MPAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One more time : Republicans : Oil and gasDemocrats : Hollywood , the movies and recording industry \ _Never \ _ be surprised at Democratic support for DRM , the RIAA or MPAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One more time:Republicans:  Oil and gasDemocrats:    Hollywood, the movies and recording industry\_Never\_ be surprised at Democratic support for DRM, the RIAA or MPAA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189267</id>
	<title>Re:I'm just waiting for</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243943760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boyfriend?!? Wouldn't her long forgotten <i>girlfriend</i> releasing a tape be much more amusing? But seriously, her personal life is irrelevant. If she does her job right, and faithfully interprets the original intent of the constitution, then her personal views are irrelevant as well. Saying that a Latina should have better judgment was a misstep, what she really meant was that better decisions can be made when input from people with diverse backgrounds is considered.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boyfriend ? ! ?
Would n't her long forgotten girlfriend releasing a tape be much more amusing ?
But seriously , her personal life is irrelevant .
If she does her job right , and faithfully interprets the original intent of the constitution , then her personal views are irrelevant as well .
Saying that a Latina should have better judgment was a misstep , what she really meant was that better decisions can be made when input from people with diverse backgrounds is considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boyfriend?!?
Wouldn't her long forgotten girlfriend releasing a tape be much more amusing?
But seriously, her personal life is irrelevant.
If she does her job right, and faithfully interprets the original intent of the constitution, then her personal views are irrelevant as well.
Saying that a Latina should have better judgment was a misstep, what she really meant was that better decisions can be made when input from people with diverse backgrounds is considered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28190949</id>
	<title>Re:Why the focus on damages?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Granted, the damages do seem high, but these are only applied where the conclusion has already been made that a proper case was brought about and the crime proven without a reasonable doubt."</p><p>"Beyond reasonable doubt" only applies to criminal cases. Most of the cases discussed here are civil, in which case the standard for guilt is much lower.</p><p>"In a perfect judicial world where only copyright violators were convicted, I would whole-heartedly support brutal monetary punishments to these self-entitled jackasses."</p><p>You would support these damages despite the fact that people get away with much less for actually (physically) hurting someone or stealing real items? You should take a look at the real criminals before you decide that some guy in his basement torrenting a movie is worth that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Granted , the damages do seem high , but these are only applied where the conclusion has already been made that a proper case was brought about and the crime proven without a reasonable doubt .
" " Beyond reasonable doubt " only applies to criminal cases .
Most of the cases discussed here are civil , in which case the standard for guilt is much lower .
" In a perfect judicial world where only copyright violators were convicted , I would whole-heartedly support brutal monetary punishments to these self-entitled jackasses .
" You would support these damages despite the fact that people get away with much less for actually ( physically ) hurting someone or stealing real items ?
You should take a look at the real criminals before you decide that some guy in his basement torrenting a movie is worth that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Granted, the damages do seem high, but these are only applied where the conclusion has already been made that a proper case was brought about and the crime proven without a reasonable doubt.
""Beyond reasonable doubt" only applies to criminal cases.
Most of the cases discussed here are civil, in which case the standard for guilt is much lower.
"In a perfect judicial world where only copyright violators were convicted, I would whole-heartedly support brutal monetary punishments to these self-entitled jackasses.
"You would support these damages despite the fact that people get away with much less for actually (physically) hurting someone or stealing real items?
You should take a look at the real criminals before you decide that some guy in his basement torrenting a movie is worth that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187585</id>
	<title>Re:Based On One Case from 1996?</title>
	<author>FilterMapReduce</author>
	<datestamp>1243936140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"A willful infringement, which the magistrate judge found, combined with a willful default, however, warrant an award greater and more significant than one which corresponds so closely to an estimated loss to the plaintiff,"</p></div><p>I don't know anything about the facts of this one case, but by itself, this seems reasonable enough to me. I mean, if you download a music album and happen to get sued for it, and the court forces you to pay the $15 that the CD would have cost in a store, that's virtually no risk at all. I would support punitive damages equal to two, three, or perhaps as high as ten times the retail value of the CD.</p><p>Which, of course, doesn't even come close to the tens of thousands of dollars that the RIAA thinks is fair. They and common sense are in different galaxies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" A willful infringement , which the magistrate judge found , combined with a willful default , however , warrant an award greater and more significant than one which corresponds so closely to an estimated loss to the plaintiff , " I do n't know anything about the facts of this one case , but by itself , this seems reasonable enough to me .
I mean , if you download a music album and happen to get sued for it , and the court forces you to pay the $ 15 that the CD would have cost in a store , that 's virtually no risk at all .
I would support punitive damages equal to two , three , or perhaps as high as ten times the retail value of the CD.Which , of course , does n't even come close to the tens of thousands of dollars that the RIAA thinks is fair .
They and common sense are in different galaxies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A willful infringement, which the magistrate judge found, combined with a willful default, however, warrant an award greater and more significant than one which corresponds so closely to an estimated loss to the plaintiff,"I don't know anything about the facts of this one case, but by itself, this seems reasonable enough to me.
I mean, if you download a music album and happen to get sued for it, and the court forces you to pay the $15 that the CD would have cost in a store, that's virtually no risk at all.
I would support punitive damages equal to two, three, or perhaps as high as ten times the retail value of the CD.Which, of course, doesn't even come close to the tens of thousands of dollars that the RIAA thinks is fair.
They and common sense are in different galaxies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189983</id>
	<title>Be careful what you ask for</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1243948020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine a world in which your DVD rip was uniquely tagged - and every download of the movie points back to you as the primary source.</p><p>Imagine that the licensed distributor has real numbers to take into court - and is suing you for the wholesale value of the distribution - plus punitive damages.</p><p>The numbers add up really, really, fast.</p><p>With no statutory limit on damages, you <b>must</b> settle the case out of court or risk taking the full whack.</p><p>In the real world of civil law, the burden of proof is much lighter.</p><p> The rights holder doesn't have to trace the movement of every file. He only has to persuade the jury that the bill has come due and that you owe him - big time.</p><p>The other side of the coin, of course, is that the good guy - the geek - isn't always the defendant.</p><p>He is sometimes the plaintiff - whose only realistic hope of recovery is through the imposition of statutory damages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a world in which your DVD rip was uniquely tagged - and every download of the movie points back to you as the primary source.Imagine that the licensed distributor has real numbers to take into court - and is suing you for the wholesale value of the distribution - plus punitive damages.The numbers add up really , really , fast.With no statutory limit on damages , you must settle the case out of court or risk taking the full whack.In the real world of civil law , the burden of proof is much lighter .
The rights holder does n't have to trace the movement of every file .
He only has to persuade the jury that the bill has come due and that you owe him - big time.The other side of the coin , of course , is that the good guy - the geek - is n't always the defendant.He is sometimes the plaintiff - whose only realistic hope of recovery is through the imposition of statutory damages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a world in which your DVD rip was uniquely tagged - and every download of the movie points back to you as the primary source.Imagine that the licensed distributor has real numbers to take into court - and is suing you for the wholesale value of the distribution - plus punitive damages.The numbers add up really, really, fast.With no statutory limit on damages, you must settle the case out of court or risk taking the full whack.In the real world of civil law, the burden of proof is much lighter.
The rights holder doesn't have to trace the movement of every file.
He only has to persuade the jury that the bill has come due and that you owe him - big time.The other side of the coin, of course, is that the good guy - the geek - isn't always the defendant.He is sometimes the plaintiff - whose only realistic hope of recovery is through the imposition of statutory damages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188367</id>
	<title>Stop it!</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1243939320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Copyright infringement eats billions of dollars in would-be profits from the makers of music, movies, games and software, according to those industries.</p></div></blockquote><p>Here is a simple solution: Get some morals and ethics and stop infringing on their copyrights. I know, I know, you don't want to have to pay for what you want, but tough shit. Do the right thing.</p><p>If you don't agree with the law, work on changing it. And, if you choose to break the law, don't whine about it when you get your ass smacked. You made your choice, live with the consequences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright infringement eats billions of dollars in would-be profits from the makers of music , movies , games and software , according to those industries.Here is a simple solution : Get some morals and ethics and stop infringing on their copyrights .
I know , I know , you do n't want to have to pay for what you want , but tough shit .
Do the right thing.If you do n't agree with the law , work on changing it .
And , if you choose to break the law , do n't whine about it when you get your ass smacked .
You made your choice , live with the consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright infringement eats billions of dollars in would-be profits from the makers of music, movies, games and software, according to those industries.Here is a simple solution: Get some morals and ethics and stop infringing on their copyrights.
I know, I know, you don't want to have to pay for what you want, but tough shit.
Do the right thing.If you don't agree with the law, work on changing it.
And, if you choose to break the law, don't whine about it when you get your ass smacked.
You made your choice, live with the consequences.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187785</id>
	<title>Legislating from the bench?</title>
	<author>astra05</author>
	<datestamp>1243936860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has anyone ever heard the poly-sci term "Legislating from the bench?" AFAIK and what I have learned is that Judges are only supposed to make judgments based on the original intents of the law, not create new policies and laws based on their judgment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone ever heard the poly-sci term " Legislating from the bench ?
" AFAIK and what I have learned is that Judges are only supposed to make judgments based on the original intents of the law , not create new policies and laws based on their judgment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone ever heard the poly-sci term "Legislating from the bench?
" AFAIK and what I have learned is that Judges are only supposed to make judgments based on the original intents of the law, not create new policies and laws based on their judgment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189129</id>
	<title>Get her out of here!!!!</title>
	<author>onyxruby</author>
	<datestamp>1243943040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Checklist of what is wrong with this candidate coming from someone who leans Democrat:
<ol>
<li>She is sexist. (openly made comments against men)</li>
<li>She is racist. (openly made comments against whites)</li>
<li>She is against constitutional rights. (on the record against the 2nd amendment)</li>
<li>She is against civil rights. (Supports RIAA)</li>
</ol><p>
Now if this same candidate was openly against black females she would have immediately been slaughtered by the press. It's time the press stop sucking up to Obama and start doing some critical reporting. When is this attitude of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/certain/ racism and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/certain/ sexism being ok in politicians going to be rejected?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Checklist of what is wrong with this candidate coming from someone who leans Democrat : She is sexist .
( openly made comments against men ) She is racist .
( openly made comments against whites ) She is against constitutional rights .
( on the record against the 2nd amendment ) She is against civil rights .
( Supports RIAA ) Now if this same candidate was openly against black females she would have immediately been slaughtered by the press .
It 's time the press stop sucking up to Obama and start doing some critical reporting .
When is this attitude of /certain/ racism and /certain/ sexism being ok in politicians going to be rejected ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Checklist of what is wrong with this candidate coming from someone who leans Democrat:

She is sexist.
(openly made comments against men)
She is racist.
(openly made comments against whites)
She is against constitutional rights.
(on the record against the 2nd amendment)
She is against civil rights.
(Supports RIAA)

Now if this same candidate was openly against black females she would have immediately been slaughtered by the press.
It's time the press stop sucking up to Obama and start doing some critical reporting.
When is this attitude of /certain/ racism and /certain/ sexism being ok in politicians going to be rejected?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187589</id>
	<title>Why the focus on damages?</title>
	<author>cybereal</author>
	<datestamp>1243936200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Granted, the damages do seem high, but these are only applied where the conclusion has already been made that a proper case was brought about and the crime proven without a reasonable doubt.</p><p>Why focus on this after-the-fact nonsense?  In a perfect judicial world where only copyright violators were convicted, I would whole-heartedly support brutal monetary punishments to these self-entitled jackasses.</p><p>But in reality, shouldn't this crowd-sourced angst be directed at the flawed proceedings and discovery that is the real issue here?  Please, for everyone who cares about "justice" and fair use and other copyright issues, let's focus the energy, however fickle it is, on what really matters here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Granted , the damages do seem high , but these are only applied where the conclusion has already been made that a proper case was brought about and the crime proven without a reasonable doubt.Why focus on this after-the-fact nonsense ?
In a perfect judicial world where only copyright violators were convicted , I would whole-heartedly support brutal monetary punishments to these self-entitled jackasses.But in reality , should n't this crowd-sourced angst be directed at the flawed proceedings and discovery that is the real issue here ?
Please , for everyone who cares about " justice " and fair use and other copyright issues , let 's focus the energy , however fickle it is , on what really matters here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Granted, the damages do seem high, but these are only applied where the conclusion has already been made that a proper case was brought about and the crime proven without a reasonable doubt.Why focus on this after-the-fact nonsense?
In a perfect judicial world where only copyright violators were convicted, I would whole-heartedly support brutal monetary punishments to these self-entitled jackasses.But in reality, shouldn't this crowd-sourced angst be directed at the flawed proceedings and discovery that is the real issue here?
Please, for everyone who cares about "justice" and fair use and other copyright issues, let's focus the energy, however fickle it is, on what really matters here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188973</id>
	<title>Re:I feel like everything that can be wrong . . .</title>
	<author>six11</author>
	<datestamp>1243942140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for those links, that was really interesting. Since this whole thing started, the media seemed to present two diametrically opposed views on this woman. It is good to see that there are still journalists out there who know how to do a little bit of analysis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for those links , that was really interesting .
Since this whole thing started , the media seemed to present two diametrically opposed views on this woman .
It is good to see that there are still journalists out there who know how to do a little bit of analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for those links, that was really interesting.
Since this whole thing started, the media seemed to present two diametrically opposed views on this woman.
It is good to see that there are still journalists out there who know how to do a little bit of analysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28194715</id>
	<title>Re:Legislating from the bench?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has anyone ever heard the poly-sci term "Legislating from the bench?" AFAIK and what I have learned is that Judges are only supposed to make judgments based on the original intents of the law, not create new policies and laws based on their judgment.</p></div><p>I haven't heard it in poly-sci, but I have heard it bantered about by conservative pundits, and their propaganda.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone ever heard the poly-sci term " Legislating from the bench ?
" AFAIK and what I have learned is that Judges are only supposed to make judgments based on the original intents of the law , not create new policies and laws based on their judgment.I have n't heard it in poly-sci , but I have heard it bantered about by conservative pundits , and their propaganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone ever heard the poly-sci term "Legislating from the bench?
" AFAIK and what I have learned is that Judges are only supposed to make judgments based on the original intents of the law, not create new policies and laws based on their judgment.I haven't heard it in poly-sci, but I have heard it bantered about by conservative pundits, and their propaganda.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188517</id>
	<title>Re:I feel like everything that can be wrong . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. . . is wrong with her.</p></div><p>Hmmm, well I feel like she's unremarkable one way or the other.</p><p>There's Roberts who was chosen specifically because he thinks the USA should torture people and generally deprive them of due process. In my book, that's about as bad as it gets.</p><p>But Sotomayor, well, I'm weakly ambivalent.</p><p>On one hand, it's pretty clear that she was chosen because she isn't male and she isn't white. When I think about people who were included in the Bush administration for diversity reasons (e.g. Rice and Gonzales), I'm not sure that diversity is a good criteria for choosing someone.</p><p>More broadly, in the long term, I think that sends the wrong message. And, in the short term, it makes it harder to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: once you open the door to discrimination, it becomes very difficult to force it shut again.</p><p>On the other hand, Obama taught constitutional law so, if there's one thing I would expect him to get right, it would be his supreme court choices. Obama's insistence on a pragmatic justice was not something I expected but I'm intrigued.</p><p>So, maybe she'll turn out OK and maybe she won't but at least she's not as bad Roberts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
is wrong with her.Hmmm , well I feel like she 's unremarkable one way or the other.There 's Roberts who was chosen specifically because he thinks the USA should torture people and generally deprive them of due process .
In my book , that 's about as bad as it gets.But Sotomayor , well , I 'm weakly ambivalent.On one hand , it 's pretty clear that she was chosen because she is n't male and she is n't white .
When I think about people who were included in the Bush administration for diversity reasons ( e.g .
Rice and Gonzales ) , I 'm not sure that diversity is a good criteria for choosing someone.More broadly , in the long term , I think that sends the wrong message .
And , in the short term , it makes it harder to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict : once you open the door to discrimination , it becomes very difficult to force it shut again.On the other hand , Obama taught constitutional law so , if there 's one thing I would expect him to get right , it would be his supreme court choices .
Obama 's insistence on a pragmatic justice was not something I expected but I 'm intrigued.So , maybe she 'll turn out OK and maybe she wo n't but at least she 's not as bad Roberts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
is wrong with her.Hmmm, well I feel like she's unremarkable one way or the other.There's Roberts who was chosen specifically because he thinks the USA should torture people and generally deprive them of due process.
In my book, that's about as bad as it gets.But Sotomayor, well, I'm weakly ambivalent.On one hand, it's pretty clear that she was chosen because she isn't male and she isn't white.
When I think about people who were included in the Bush administration for diversity reasons (e.g.
Rice and Gonzales), I'm not sure that diversity is a good criteria for choosing someone.More broadly, in the long term, I think that sends the wrong message.
And, in the short term, it makes it harder to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: once you open the door to discrimination, it becomes very difficult to force it shut again.On the other hand, Obama taught constitutional law so, if there's one thing I would expect him to get right, it would be his supreme court choices.
Obama's insistence on a pragmatic justice was not something I expected but I'm intrigued.So, maybe she'll turn out OK and maybe she won't but at least she's not as bad Roberts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187541</id>
	<title>Re:I feel like everything that can be wrong . . .</title>
	<author>syphax</author>
	<datestamp>1243936020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rantings, indeed.</p><p>To wit:</p><p>Are you aware of Sotomayor's <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/01/sotomayor/index.html" title="salon.com">dissent</a> [salon.com] in which she defended the 1st amendment rights of a white NYPD employee  <em>when he was fired for having sent blatantly racist and anti-Semitic replies in response to charity requests he received in the mail?</em></p><p><em>That she <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/" title="scotusblog.com">ruled against the plaintiff in 80\% of race discrimination cases</a> [scotusblog.com]?</em></p><p><em>That in her <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?\_r=2&amp;pagewanted=5" title="nytimes.com">famous speech</a> [nytimes.com] she also said stuff like:</em></p><blockquote><div><p><em> I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.</em></p><p><em>There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering.</em></p></div> </blockquote><p>The horror!</p><p>I am so sick of people taking one fragment of a speech or one ruling and rushing to judgment based on their own biases and agendas.  Take a deep breath.  Read Ricci.  Read the Pappas dissent.  Then let us know what you think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rantings , indeed.To wit : Are you aware of Sotomayor 's dissent [ salon.com ] in which she defended the 1st amendment rights of a white NYPD employee when he was fired for having sent blatantly racist and anti-Semitic replies in response to charity requests he received in the mail ? That she ruled against the plaintiff in 80 \ % of race discrimination cases [ scotusblog.com ] ? That in her famous speech [ nytimes.com ] she also said stuff like : I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions , presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me , that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires .
I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations .
I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt , as the Supreme Court suggests , continuously to judge when those opinions , sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.There is always a danger embedded in relative morality , but since judging is a series of choices that we must make , that I am forced to make , I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering .
The horror ! I am so sick of people taking one fragment of a speech or one ruling and rushing to judgment based on their own biases and agendas .
Take a deep breath .
Read Ricci .
Read the Pappas dissent .
Then let us know what you think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rantings, indeed.To wit:Are you aware of Sotomayor's dissent [salon.com] in which she defended the 1st amendment rights of a white NYPD employee  when he was fired for having sent blatantly racist and anti-Semitic replies in response to charity requests he received in the mail?That she ruled against the plaintiff in 80\% of race discrimination cases [scotusblog.com]?That in her famous speech [nytimes.com] she also said stuff like: I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires.
I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations.
I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering.
The horror!I am so sick of people taking one fragment of a speech or one ruling and rushing to judgment based on their own biases and agendas.
Take a deep breath.
Read Ricci.
Read the Pappas dissent.
Then let us know what you think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28217297</id>
	<title>Re:Stop it!</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1244123700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does a lie get modded insightful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does a lie get modded insightful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does a lie get modded insightful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28191821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187755</id>
	<title>Re:I feel like everything that can be wrong . . .</title>
	<author>flaming error</author>
	<datestamp>1243936800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; As a white male, I've<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... had two friends kill themselves</p><p>Aha!  She's had three friends commit suicide.  So there, "tanman"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; As a white male , I 've ... had two friends kill themselvesAha !
She 's had three friends commit suicide .
So there , " tanman " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; As a white male, I've ... had two friends kill themselvesAha!
She's had three friends commit suicide.
So there, "tanman"!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28192101</id>
	<title>So.. when is US going to stop with 2 party system?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243966860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since neither one can offer the "big change" they always promise, isn't it pretty clear that something's broken with only 2 major parties up there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since neither one can offer the " big change " they always promise , is n't it pretty clear that something 's broken with only 2 major parties up there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since neither one can offer the "big change" they always promise, isn't it pretty clear that something's broken with only 2 major parties up there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187409</id>
	<title>Re:Based On One Case from 1996?</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1243935480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Are there more decisions I missed?</p></div></blockquote><p>I just assumed they were talking about her decision to ignore reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there more decisions I missed ? I just assumed they were talking about her decision to ignore reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there more decisions I missed?I just assumed they were talking about her decision to ignore reality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188651</id>
	<title>Say What you want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243940580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say What you want about goold old GW Bush.</p><p>But I do not recall him putting any Oil Industry attorneys in the DOJ...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say What you want about goold old GW Bush.But I do not recall him putting any Oil Industry attorneys in the DOJ.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say What you want about goold old GW Bush.But I do not recall him putting any Oil Industry attorneys in the DOJ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279</id>
	<title>I feel like everything that can be wrong . . .</title>
	<author>Tanman</author>
	<datestamp>1243935000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . is wrong with her.  I mean, she's sexist, racist, pro-corp, anti-individual rights, pro-handout, anti-responsibility.</p><p>1.  There is no excuse for her statement regarding how the richness of a latina's life experiences give them the ability to make better decisions than a white man.  News flash:  That is racism, bigotry, the whole works.  As a white male, I've moved around the country, lived on both coasts, attended schools in three states, had two friends kill themselves, had many others not.  I've seen both financial ruin (my parents were hundreds of thousands in debt after their business failed when I was a child -- they did not declare bankruptcy and eventually paid back every dime) as well as upper-class lifestyle.  I've had pets.  I've traveled the world from Honduras to Hong Kong.  Fact of the matter is that her lack of respect for MY opinions is greatly disturbing.</p><p>2.  She holds a hard-line, firm belief in affirmative action, regardless of the circumstances.  By god if the percentages aren't represented, then the reason must be RACISM!  Never mind that statistics and probabilities may mean that the 15 people who ace a test might just be more qualified for their job.</p><p>There's more, but I'm busy and you have better things to do than read my rantings.  Needless to say, I hope she flunks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
is wrong with her .
I mean , she 's sexist , racist , pro-corp , anti-individual rights , pro-handout , anti-responsibility.1 .
There is no excuse for her statement regarding how the richness of a latina 's life experiences give them the ability to make better decisions than a white man .
News flash : That is racism , bigotry , the whole works .
As a white male , I 've moved around the country , lived on both coasts , attended schools in three states , had two friends kill themselves , had many others not .
I 've seen both financial ruin ( my parents were hundreds of thousands in debt after their business failed when I was a child -- they did not declare bankruptcy and eventually paid back every dime ) as well as upper-class lifestyle .
I 've had pets .
I 've traveled the world from Honduras to Hong Kong .
Fact of the matter is that her lack of respect for MY opinions is greatly disturbing.2 .
She holds a hard-line , firm belief in affirmative action , regardless of the circumstances .
By god if the percentages are n't represented , then the reason must be RACISM !
Never mind that statistics and probabilities may mean that the 15 people who ace a test might just be more qualified for their job.There 's more , but I 'm busy and you have better things to do than read my rantings .
Needless to say , I hope she flunks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
is wrong with her.
I mean, she's sexist, racist, pro-corp, anti-individual rights, pro-handout, anti-responsibility.1.
There is no excuse for her statement regarding how the richness of a latina's life experiences give them the ability to make better decisions than a white man.
News flash:  That is racism, bigotry, the whole works.
As a white male, I've moved around the country, lived on both coasts, attended schools in three states, had two friends kill themselves, had many others not.
I've seen both financial ruin (my parents were hundreds of thousands in debt after their business failed when I was a child -- they did not declare bankruptcy and eventually paid back every dime) as well as upper-class lifestyle.
I've had pets.
I've traveled the world from Honduras to Hong Kong.
Fact of the matter is that her lack of respect for MY opinions is greatly disturbing.2.
She holds a hard-line, firm belief in affirmative action, regardless of the circumstances.
By god if the percentages aren't represented, then the reason must be RACISM!
Never mind that statistics and probabilities may mean that the 15 people who ace a test might just be more qualified for their job.There's more, but I'm busy and you have better things to do than read my rantings.
Needless to say, I hope she flunks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188211</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1243938720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>... if people want their government representatives and judges to understand their reservations about RIAA's way of doing business<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i>
<br> <br>
This is <i>exactly</i> what's wrong, here. Appelate judges (which include the associates of the Supreme Court) do <i>not</i> represent the people. They represent the Constitution. They look at <i>existing laws</i> and make sure that, when a case is brought before them, those laws are being applied in keeping with the Constitution. The judges should be <i>completely</i> blind to the aspirations, desires, or preferences of "the people," other than as it has been expressed through the laws that the people's representatives have legislated into place. And those representatives and the laws they've produced have a long history of supporting copyrights.
<br> <br>
That's why Sotomayor's comments about her expectations that a wise Latina would make
"better" decisions than a white male says a lot about how wrong headed she is about her prospective new job and the role of a justice. Likewise when she yuks it up, nudge-nudge-wink-wink, about how she shouldn't say out <i>loud</i> how the appelate courts are where "policy is made." Completely, absolutely backwards, constitutionally. Just like the guy who's appointed her, of course, so that's not really all that surprising, I suppose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... if people want their government representatives and judges to understand their reservations about RIAA 's way of doing business .. . This is exactly what 's wrong , here .
Appelate judges ( which include the associates of the Supreme Court ) do not represent the people .
They represent the Constitution .
They look at existing laws and make sure that , when a case is brought before them , those laws are being applied in keeping with the Constitution .
The judges should be completely blind to the aspirations , desires , or preferences of " the people , " other than as it has been expressed through the laws that the people 's representatives have legislated into place .
And those representatives and the laws they 've produced have a long history of supporting copyrights .
That 's why Sotomayor 's comments about her expectations that a wise Latina would make " better " decisions than a white male says a lot about how wrong headed she is about her prospective new job and the role of a justice .
Likewise when she yuks it up , nudge-nudge-wink-wink , about how she should n't say out loud how the appelate courts are where " policy is made .
" Completely , absolutely backwards , constitutionally .
Just like the guy who 's appointed her , of course , so that 's not really all that surprising , I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if people want their government representatives and judges to understand their reservations about RIAA's way of doing business ...
 
This is exactly what's wrong, here.
Appelate judges (which include the associates of the Supreme Court) do not represent the people.
They represent the Constitution.
They look at existing laws and make sure that, when a case is brought before them, those laws are being applied in keeping with the Constitution.
The judges should be completely blind to the aspirations, desires, or preferences of "the people," other than as it has been expressed through the laws that the people's representatives have legislated into place.
And those representatives and the laws they've produced have a long history of supporting copyrights.
That's why Sotomayor's comments about her expectations that a wise Latina would make
"better" decisions than a white male says a lot about how wrong headed she is about her prospective new job and the role of a justice.
Likewise when she yuks it up, nudge-nudge-wink-wink, about how she shouldn't say out loud how the appelate courts are where "policy is made.
" Completely, absolutely backwards, constitutionally.
Just like the guy who's appointed her, of course, so that's not really all that surprising, I suppose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187133</id>
	<title>Revolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243934340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the only answer. Throw them all out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the only answer .
Throw them all out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the only answer.
Throw them all out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187489</id>
	<title>No basis for Wired's conclusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243935780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see anything in the Top Rank decision which justifies the conclusion the Wired author has drawn. The only decision referred to was Top Rank v. Allerton Lounge, a typical 'bar and tavern' case. In those cases the statutory damages are frequently from 2 to 4 times the actual damages. The Magistrate appears to have awarded statutory damages on a 1:1 ratio. Judge Sotomayor raised the damages, but not wildly to some extreme multiple like what the RIAA looks for. It appears that her award was between 2 and 3 times the actual damages, which is within the usual range.<br> <br>The RIAA seeks from 2,200 to 450,000 times the actual damages. It is well settled law that statutory damages awards have to <b> <i>bear a reasonable relationship to</i></b>  the actual damages, and in keeping with economic reality. And it is well settled law that excessive disproportion to the actual damages is unconstitutional, as a violation of the due process clause. <br> <br>There is no reason in the world to think that Judge Sotomayor would consider imposing statutory damages of $750 to $150,000 as against plaintiff's 35-cent loss for the download of a single mp3 file. <br> <br>In the unlikely event that the RIAA could prove the defendant was a "distributor" -- i.e. someone who disseminated copies to the public by selling them, or by other transfers of ownership, or by rentals, leases, or lending -- then of course the actual damages would be higher than 35 cents. But the RIAA would have to prove its actual damages, and then the court could award statutory damages greater than that sum, but -- under established Supreme Court precedent -- the award would be constitutionally suspect were the ratio greater than single digits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see anything in the Top Rank decision which justifies the conclusion the Wired author has drawn .
The only decision referred to was Top Rank v. Allerton Lounge , a typical 'bar and tavern ' case .
In those cases the statutory damages are frequently from 2 to 4 times the actual damages .
The Magistrate appears to have awarded statutory damages on a 1 : 1 ratio .
Judge Sotomayor raised the damages , but not wildly to some extreme multiple like what the RIAA looks for .
It appears that her award was between 2 and 3 times the actual damages , which is within the usual range .
The RIAA seeks from 2,200 to 450,000 times the actual damages .
It is well settled law that statutory damages awards have to bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages , and in keeping with economic reality .
And it is well settled law that excessive disproportion to the actual damages is unconstitutional , as a violation of the due process clause .
There is no reason in the world to think that Judge Sotomayor would consider imposing statutory damages of $ 750 to $ 150,000 as against plaintiff 's 35-cent loss for the download of a single mp3 file .
In the unlikely event that the RIAA could prove the defendant was a " distributor " -- i.e .
someone who disseminated copies to the public by selling them , or by other transfers of ownership , or by rentals , leases , or lending -- then of course the actual damages would be higher than 35 cents .
But the RIAA would have to prove its actual damages , and then the court could award statutory damages greater than that sum , but -- under established Supreme Court precedent -- the award would be constitutionally suspect were the ratio greater than single digits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see anything in the Top Rank decision which justifies the conclusion the Wired author has drawn.
The only decision referred to was Top Rank v. Allerton Lounge, a typical 'bar and tavern' case.
In those cases the statutory damages are frequently from 2 to 4 times the actual damages.
The Magistrate appears to have awarded statutory damages on a 1:1 ratio.
Judge Sotomayor raised the damages, but not wildly to some extreme multiple like what the RIAA looks for.
It appears that her award was between 2 and 3 times the actual damages, which is within the usual range.
The RIAA seeks from 2,200 to 450,000 times the actual damages.
It is well settled law that statutory damages awards have to  bear a reasonable relationship to  the actual damages, and in keeping with economic reality.
And it is well settled law that excessive disproportion to the actual damages is unconstitutional, as a violation of the due process clause.
There is no reason in the world to think that Judge Sotomayor would consider imposing statutory damages of $750 to $150,000 as against plaintiff's 35-cent loss for the download of a single mp3 file.
In the unlikely event that the RIAA could prove the defendant was a "distributor" -- i.e.
someone who disseminated copies to the public by selling them, or by other transfers of ownership, or by rentals, leases, or lending -- then of course the actual damages would be higher than 35 cents.
But the RIAA would have to prove its actual damages, and then the court could award statutory damages greater than that sum, but -- under established Supreme Court precedent -- the award would be constitutionally suspect were the ratio greater than single digits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189323</id>
	<title>Re:No basis for Wired's conclusion</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1243943940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong NYCL, but I was under the impression that the $750-$150,000 damages were specially established in the copyright laws as a special category of statutory damages for willful copyright infringements. However, it probably also true that copyright should NOT be a special case, or at least not so special when compared to other willful types of damages as to require 2,200+ times more damages. I hope that the Capitol vs Thomas case does eventually (although I do feel for Jammie and the tremendous stress that she must be under during that process) wind its way through to the Supreme Court so that a high precedent can be decided on the damages issue, among others. We shall see in any case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong NYCL , but I was under the impression that the $ 750- $ 150,000 damages were specially established in the copyright laws as a special category of statutory damages for willful copyright infringements .
However , it probably also true that copyright should NOT be a special case , or at least not so special when compared to other willful types of damages as to require 2,200 + times more damages .
I hope that the Capitol vs Thomas case does eventually ( although I do feel for Jammie and the tremendous stress that she must be under during that process ) wind its way through to the Supreme Court so that a high precedent can be decided on the damages issue , among others .
We shall see in any case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong NYCL, but I was under the impression that the $750-$150,000 damages were specially established in the copyright laws as a special category of statutory damages for willful copyright infringements.
However, it probably also true that copyright should NOT be a special case, or at least not so special when compared to other willful types of damages as to require 2,200+ times more damages.
I hope that the Capitol vs Thomas case does eventually (although I do feel for Jammie and the tremendous stress that she must be under during that process) wind its way through to the Supreme Court so that a high precedent can be decided on the damages issue, among others.
We shall see in any case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188133</id>
	<title>Insufficient Data, Will Robinson . . . .</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1243938360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, a Republican governor of California to the Supreme Court.  Warren was a centrist with broad support on both sides of the aisle.  Warren led the Supreme Court through a remarkably liberal period.  Eisenhower later publicly rued the choice he made.  Bush the Elder nominated Souter as a conservative, and got something quite different.</p><p>The Court of Appeals judges (like Sotomayor) are bound by existing law and precedent.  They never get the opportunity to be the final word on the Constitution.  Once they go to the Supreme Court, they have the complete, unobstructed freedom to change--and they often do.</p><p>TFA is just speculative nonsense.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is just putting it out because it starts little flame wars between the piracy lovers and the piracy haters.  Aargh, matey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren , a Republican governor of California to the Supreme Court .
Warren was a centrist with broad support on both sides of the aisle .
Warren led the Supreme Court through a remarkably liberal period .
Eisenhower later publicly rued the choice he made .
Bush the Elder nominated Souter as a conservative , and got something quite different.The Court of Appeals judges ( like Sotomayor ) are bound by existing law and precedent .
They never get the opportunity to be the final word on the Constitution .
Once they go to the Supreme Court , they have the complete , unobstructed freedom to change--and they often do.TFA is just speculative nonsense .
/. is just putting it out because it starts little flame wars between the piracy lovers and the piracy haters .
Aargh , matey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, a Republican governor of California to the Supreme Court.
Warren was a centrist with broad support on both sides of the aisle.
Warren led the Supreme Court through a remarkably liberal period.
Eisenhower later publicly rued the choice he made.
Bush the Elder nominated Souter as a conservative, and got something quite different.The Court of Appeals judges (like Sotomayor) are bound by existing law and precedent.
They never get the opportunity to be the final word on the Constitution.
Once they go to the Supreme Court, they have the complete, unobstructed freedom to change--and they often do.TFA is just speculative nonsense.
/. is just putting it out because it starts little flame wars between the piracy lovers and the piracy haters.
Aargh, matey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28195845</id>
	<title>Re:Legislating from the bench?</title>
	<author>jellie</author>
	<datestamp>1244044140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Legislating from the bench" or "activist judging" are meaning political phrases that conservatives (and liberals, occasionally) throw around to accuse the other side of making decisions it doesn't like. Some of the most famous civil rights cases could be called "legislating from the bench" because they overturned or ignored precedent. The decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned a previous Supreme Court decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, so this is activism. Roe v. Wade was a big decision and is often cited as well, but the recent ruling Gonzales v. Carhart (2007, upholding the "Partial-Birth" Abortion Act of 2003) ignored two previous rulings - Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Roe v. Wade.</p><p>Judges are supposed to follow precedent and the law, but there is nothing that says it must follow "the original intents" of the law. That's a judicial philosophy to which some (such as Justice Scalia) claim to subscribe.</p><p>IANAL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Legislating from the bench " or " activist judging " are meaning political phrases that conservatives ( and liberals , occasionally ) throw around to accuse the other side of making decisions it does n't like .
Some of the most famous civil rights cases could be called " legislating from the bench " because they overturned or ignored precedent .
The decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned a previous Supreme Court decision , Plessy v. Ferguson , so this is activism .
Roe v. Wade was a big decision and is often cited as well , but the recent ruling Gonzales v. Carhart ( 2007 , upholding the " Partial-Birth " Abortion Act of 2003 ) ignored two previous rulings - Planned Parenthood v. Casey ( 1992 ) and Roe v. Wade.Judges are supposed to follow precedent and the law , but there is nothing that says it must follow " the original intents " of the law .
That 's a judicial philosophy to which some ( such as Justice Scalia ) claim to subscribe.IANAL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Legislating from the bench" or "activist judging" are meaning political phrases that conservatives (and liberals, occasionally) throw around to accuse the other side of making decisions it doesn't like.
Some of the most famous civil rights cases could be called "legislating from the bench" because they overturned or ignored precedent.
The decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned a previous Supreme Court decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, so this is activism.
Roe v. Wade was a big decision and is often cited as well, but the recent ruling Gonzales v. Carhart (2007, upholding the "Partial-Birth" Abortion Act of 2003) ignored two previous rulings - Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Roe v. Wade.Judges are supposed to follow precedent and the law, but there is nothing that says it must follow "the original intents" of the law.
That's a judicial philosophy to which some (such as Justice Scalia) claim to subscribe.IANAL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28190621</id>
	<title>austin milbarge</title>
	<author>Austin Milbarge</author>
	<datestamp>1243953060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What did you expect?  It's liberals like Obama that embrace and encourage litigation and big $$ awards.  Did someone say Hope and Change??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What did you expect ?
It 's liberals like Obama that embrace and encourage litigation and big $ $ awards .
Did someone say Hope and Change ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did you expect?
It's liberals like Obama that embrace and encourage litigation and big $$ awards.
Did someone say Hope and Change?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188453</id>
	<title>Re:Why the focus on damages?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Granted, the damages do seem high, but these are only applied where the conclusion has already been made that a proper case was brought about and the crime proven without a reasonable doubt.</p></div></blockquote><p>What are you talking about?  Statutory damages apply in civil cases like the RIAA suits.  There's no crime.  The threshold for proof is much lower than it is in a criminal case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Granted , the damages do seem high , but these are only applied where the conclusion has already been made that a proper case was brought about and the crime proven without a reasonable doubt.What are you talking about ?
Statutory damages apply in civil cases like the RIAA suits .
There 's no crime .
The threshold for proof is much lower than it is in a criminal case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Granted, the damages do seem high, but these are only applied where the conclusion has already been made that a proper case was brought about and the crime proven without a reasonable doubt.What are you talking about?
Statutory damages apply in civil cases like the RIAA suits.
There's no crime.
The threshold for proof is much lower than it is in a criminal case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189149</id>
	<title>Re:I feel like everything that can be wrong . . .</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243943160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>had two friends kill themselves</i> Man, it must be rough being one of your friends!</htmltext>
<tokenext>had two friends kill themselves Man , it must be rough being one of your friends !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>had two friends kill themselves Man, it must be rough being one of your friends!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187385</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1243935420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One more time:</p><p>Republicans:  Oil and gas</p><p>Democrats:    Hollywood, the movies and recording industry</p><p>\_Never\_ be surprised at Democratic support for DRM, the RIAA or MPAA.</p></div><p>You still miss the point...<br>
Republicans - Get all the power they can while paying lip service to conservitives.<br>
Democrats - Get all the power they can while paying lip service to liberals.<br> <br>
They just play off each other to distract the public.  There is no difference between them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One more time : Republicans : Oil and gasDemocrats : Hollywood , the movies and recording industry \ _Never \ _ be surprised at Democratic support for DRM , the RIAA or MPAA.You still miss the point.. . Republicans - Get all the power they can while paying lip service to conservitives .
Democrats - Get all the power they can while paying lip service to liberals .
They just play off each other to distract the public .
There is no difference between them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One more time:Republicans:  Oil and gasDemocrats:    Hollywood, the movies and recording industry\_Never\_ be surprised at Democratic support for DRM, the RIAA or MPAA.You still miss the point...
Republicans - Get all the power they can while paying lip service to conservitives.
Democrats - Get all the power they can while paying lip service to liberals.
They just play off each other to distract the public.
There is no difference between them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187577</id>
	<title>Re:oh for god's sake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243936140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about the OP, but I have, someone linked it in the last Slashdot discussion.</p><p>In a nutshell, her speech was: "My race and gender bias my decisions. But don't worry - I'm a Latina woman and not a white male. That makes it OK!"</p><p>I fail to see how that isn't blatantly racist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the OP , but I have , someone linked it in the last Slashdot discussion.In a nutshell , her speech was : " My race and gender bias my decisions .
But do n't worry - I 'm a Latina woman and not a white male .
That makes it OK !
" I fail to see how that is n't blatantly racist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the OP, but I have, someone linked it in the last Slashdot discussion.In a nutshell, her speech was: "My race and gender bias my decisions.
But don't worry - I'm a Latina woman and not a white male.
That makes it OK!
"I fail to see how that isn't blatantly racist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187375</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1243935360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Republicans: Oil and gas, banks</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Democrats: Hollywood, the movies and recording industry, banks, unions, Detroit</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.  You were missing a few.  Funny how the bankers appear on both lists, isn't it?  I don't know if I should complement them for being such clever bastards or hope that they are the first ones up against the wall if the brown stuff hits the fan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Republicans : Oil and gas , banksDemocrats : Hollywood , the movies and recording industry , banks , unions , DetroitFixed that for you .
You were missing a few .
Funny how the bankers appear on both lists , is n't it ?
I do n't know if I should complement them for being such clever bastards or hope that they are the first ones up against the wall if the brown stuff hits the fan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Republicans: Oil and gas, banksDemocrats: Hollywood, the movies and recording industry, banks, unions, DetroitFixed that for you.
You were missing a few.
Funny how the bankers appear on both lists, isn't it?
I don't know if I should complement them for being such clever bastards or hope that they are the first ones up against the wall if the brown stuff hits the fan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28194675</id>
	<title>Government not only of Obama</title>
	<author>Maitrix</author>
	<datestamp>1244039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This government isn't run only by Obama, as you well know.  Democrats in power, like Biden and Conyers, are famous for supporting the RIAA, MPAA and any corporate media outfit (that kicks money back to these politicians after offering their customers the least use rights possible).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This government is n't run only by Obama , as you well know .
Democrats in power , like Biden and Conyers , are famous for supporting the RIAA , MPAA and any corporate media outfit ( that kicks money back to these politicians after offering their customers the least use rights possible ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This government isn't run only by Obama, as you well know.
Democrats in power, like Biden and Conyers, are famous for supporting the RIAA, MPAA and any corporate media outfit (that kicks money back to these politicians after offering their customers the least use rights possible).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188169</id>
	<title>Re:Legislating from the bench?</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1243938540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is what she did in the one case referenced. She moved the judgement more in to line with the standard. No one's actually put forth anything showing that she will "legislate from the bench." Judges are to narrowly construe the law, and not stretch it to fit a situation that's "close enough." Which is really why I laugh at so much of the lawyering going on in the *AA cases. There's a lot of "but it's like this!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is what she did in the one case referenced .
She moved the judgement more in to line with the standard .
No one 's actually put forth anything showing that she will " legislate from the bench .
" Judges are to narrowly construe the law , and not stretch it to fit a situation that 's " close enough .
" Which is really why I laugh at so much of the lawyering going on in the * AA cases .
There 's a lot of " but it 's like this !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is what she did in the one case referenced.
She moved the judgement more in to line with the standard.
No one's actually put forth anything showing that she will "legislate from the bench.
" Judges are to narrowly construe the law, and not stretch it to fit a situation that's "close enough.
" Which is really why I laugh at so much of the lawyering going on in the *AA cases.
There's a lot of "but it's like this!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187631</id>
	<title>This was a little obvious</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1243936380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't recall ever hearing of one politician who wasn't on the side of the RIAA. Many people are calling it corruption, but it is legal because the money that changes hands is "campaign donations". However Legal corruption is still corruption. It has been around longer than any of us posting on here and I don't foresee it changing any time soon. Big business runs the country, this is no different than a year ago when all the telecommunications companies got off the hook because they gave "campaign donations" to most of congress the largest of which were to the three presidential candidates Obama, McCain and Clinton. Hmmmm where's Charlie Wilson when you need him...or maybe Mr. Smith.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't recall ever hearing of one politician who was n't on the side of the RIAA .
Many people are calling it corruption , but it is legal because the money that changes hands is " campaign donations " .
However Legal corruption is still corruption .
It has been around longer than any of us posting on here and I do n't foresee it changing any time soon .
Big business runs the country , this is no different than a year ago when all the telecommunications companies got off the hook because they gave " campaign donations " to most of congress the largest of which were to the three presidential candidates Obama , McCain and Clinton .
Hmmmm where 's Charlie Wilson when you need him...or maybe Mr. Smith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't recall ever hearing of one politician who wasn't on the side of the RIAA.
Many people are calling it corruption, but it is legal because the money that changes hands is "campaign donations".
However Legal corruption is still corruption.
It has been around longer than any of us posting on here and I don't foresee it changing any time soon.
Big business runs the country, this is no different than a year ago when all the telecommunications companies got off the hook because they gave "campaign donations" to most of congress the largest of which were to the three presidential candidates Obama, McCain and Clinton.
Hmmmm where's Charlie Wilson when you need him...or maybe Mr. Smith.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187085</id>
	<title>Based On One Case from 1996?</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1243934160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wired reports that, based on her previous <b>decisions</b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>Huh, that's odd, I only found the article to list one case -- the TopRank suing the host of a tavern in 1996.  And the statement she added as:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"A willful infringement, which the magistrate judge found, combined with a willful
default, however, warrant an award greater and more significant than one which corresponds so closely to an estimated loss to the plaintiff,"</p></div><p>Are there more decisions I missed?  Are we basing our image of this woman off of one action and one statement?  <br> <br>

It's not a good indication but it's hardly conclusive.  Things have changed with the advent of the internet since then.  Here's to hoping, I guess, but I think we're being a bit unfair and too hasty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wired reports that , based on her previous decisions ... Huh , that 's odd , I only found the article to list one case -- the TopRank suing the host of a tavern in 1996 .
And the statement she added as : " A willful infringement , which the magistrate judge found , combined with a willful default , however , warrant an award greater and more significant than one which corresponds so closely to an estimated loss to the plaintiff , " Are there more decisions I missed ?
Are we basing our image of this woman off of one action and one statement ?
It 's not a good indication but it 's hardly conclusive .
Things have changed with the advent of the internet since then .
Here 's to hoping , I guess , but I think we 're being a bit unfair and too hasty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wired reports that, based on her previous decisions ... Huh, that's odd, I only found the article to list one case -- the TopRank suing the host of a tavern in 1996.
And the statement she added as:"A willful infringement, which the magistrate judge found, combined with a willful
default, however, warrant an award greater and more significant than one which corresponds so closely to an estimated loss to the plaintiff,"Are there more decisions I missed?
Are we basing our image of this woman off of one action and one statement?
It's not a good indication but it's hardly conclusive.
Things have changed with the advent of the internet since then.
Here's to hoping, I guess, but I think we're being a bit unfair and too hasty.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28190989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28217297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28191821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28195845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28190107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28190949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28213305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28194715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28192101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_199225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28195205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28195845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28194715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28195205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28192101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28213305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28190989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28191821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28217297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28190949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28190107
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28188865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28189113
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_199225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_199225.28187349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
