<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_05_222222</id>
	<title>RIAA Wants To Bar Jammie From Making Objections</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244199240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">NewYorkCountryLawyer</a> writes <i>"In the Duluth, Minnesota case headed for a re-trial on June 15th, <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=Virgin\_v\_Thomas">Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset</a>, the RIAA <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#8942369257452498544">has filed a motion</a> seeking to bar the defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset (she got married recently), from making objections to the plaintiffs' copyright registration documents. To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections. I'm guessing that the RIAA lawyers realized they have some kind of problem with their paperwork, and thought this a clever way of short-circuiting it. Instead, of course, they have merely red-flagged it for Ms. Thomas-Rasset's new legal team. A few days earlier, the RIAA lawyers <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#6503525849103020947">filed a similarly ludicrous motion</a> trying to keep Ms. Thomas-Rasset's expert witness from testifying; that too is doomed."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " In the Duluth , Minnesota case headed for a re-trial on June 15th , Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset , the RIAA has filed a motion seeking to bar the defendant , Jammie Thomas-Rasset ( she got married recently ) , from making objections to the plaintiffs ' copyright registration documents .
To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system , let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system ; the RIAA 's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted , as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial # 2 , just because the lawyer she had in Trial # 1 did n't make similar objections .
I 'm guessing that the RIAA lawyers realized they have some kind of problem with their paperwork , and thought this a clever way of short-circuiting it .
Instead , of course , they have merely red-flagged it for Ms. Thomas-Rasset 's new legal team .
A few days earlier , the RIAA lawyers filed a similarly ludicrous motion trying to keep Ms. Thomas-Rasset 's expert witness from testifying ; that too is doomed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the Duluth, Minnesota case headed for a re-trial on June 15th, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the RIAA has filed a motion seeking to bar the defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset (she got married recently), from making objections to the plaintiffs' copyright registration documents.
To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections.
I'm guessing that the RIAA lawyers realized they have some kind of problem with their paperwork, and thought this a clever way of short-circuiting it.
Instead, of course, they have merely red-flagged it for Ms. Thomas-Rasset's new legal team.
A few days earlier, the RIAA lawyers filed a similarly ludicrous motion trying to keep Ms. Thomas-Rasset's expert witness from testifying; that too is doomed.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229209</id>
	<title>EMI, Sony, Universal, Warner</title>
	<author>SUB7IME</author>
	<datestamp>1244209440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please stop saying "RIAA" unless you also name its constituent organizations. Calling them "RIAA" without naming them simply lets them off the hook:
    * EMI
    * Sony Music Entertainment
    * Universal Music Group
    * Warner Music Group</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop saying " RIAA " unless you also name its constituent organizations .
Calling them " RIAA " without naming them simply lets them off the hook : * EMI * Sony Music Entertainment * Universal Music Group * Warner Music Group</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop saying "RIAA" unless you also name its constituent organizations.
Calling them "RIAA" without naming them simply lets them off the hook:
    * EMI
    * Sony Music Entertainment
    * Universal Music Group
    * Warner Music Group</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229307</id>
	<title>Bad Idea To Get Married</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1244211360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, I think I would have held off on the marriage until this was settled.  Just live together, sleep together, and allow Jamie to declare bankruptcy if necessary on her own first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I think I would have held off on the marriage until this was settled .
Just live together , sleep together , and allow Jamie to declare bankruptcy if necessary on her own first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I think I would have held off on the marriage until this was settled.
Just live together, sleep together, and allow Jamie to declare bankruptcy if necessary on her own first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228955</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244206320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>However, it was entertaining and related important information that I would not have inferred myself not being a lawyer.  Keep it up and disregard the self important idiot that posted the parent to this.
<br> <br>
Thanks for the summary and the commentary both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , it was entertaining and related important information that I would not have inferred myself not being a lawyer .
Keep it up and disregard the self important idiot that posted the parent to this .
Thanks for the summary and the commentary both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, it was entertaining and related important information that I would not have inferred myself not being a lawyer.
Keep it up and disregard the self important idiot that posted the parent to this.
Thanks for the summary and the commentary both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229677</id>
	<title>Re:Gimmee a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244216160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong with that? If I were standing over someone with a baseball bat then I would not want them to do any of those things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with that ?
If I were standing over someone with a baseball bat then I would not want them to do any of those things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with that?
If I were standing over someone with a baseball bat then I would not want them to do any of those things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228747</id>
	<title>Re:it flies in the face of common sense</title>
	<author>countach</author>
	<datestamp>1244204400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In many legal systems, appeals are limited to matters of law, not matters of fact. At least in certain levels of the legal system. The highest courts don't want to bother themselves with deciding the facts, they want to spend their precious time on examining the law. Whether the RIAA has their paperwork in order is a matter of fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In many legal systems , appeals are limited to matters of law , not matters of fact .
At least in certain levels of the legal system .
The highest courts do n't want to bother themselves with deciding the facts , they want to spend their precious time on examining the law .
Whether the RIAA has their paperwork in order is a matter of fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many legal systems, appeals are limited to matters of law, not matters of fact.
At least in certain levels of the legal system.
The highest courts don't want to bother themselves with deciding the facts, they want to spend their precious time on examining the law.
Whether the RIAA has their paperwork in order is a matter of fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228945</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm...</title>
	<author>JustOK</author>
	<datestamp>1244206260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he's just trying to up the traffic to his blog by decreasing the marvelous quality of his summaries</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he 's just trying to up the traffic to his blog by decreasing the marvelous quality of his summaries</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he's just trying to up the traffic to his blog by decreasing the marvelous quality of his summaries</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659</id>
	<title>What a non-story</title>
	<author>CajunArson</author>
	<datestamp>1244203800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages.  The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed.   In other words: Even if this motion to suppress objections fails, the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that.  Frankly, the motion is not as evil as people here will make it out to be, since the issue of ownership of the copyrights isn't really in dispute anyway, and it will save both sides time &amp; money to get to the important parts of the case.</p><p>Another thing to note is that this appears to be a <b>new</b> trial, which is not the same thing as an <b>appeal</b>.  Despite what many people think, an appeal is not like a do-over of the original case.  Once the original trial has been carried out, an appeal can only be made of issues that were properly disputed and objected to at trial.  So, if a fact is established at trial, and there is no clear objection that is preserved for appeal, you can't argue it, even if you think that would be a great way to win the case during appeal.  An appeal is almost always about questions of law instead of fact as well, and appellate courts usually give a great deal of deference to what the factfinders (usually the jury) determined during the trial, and will only overturn or (more commonly) vacate a lower court's factfinding if the jury reached a <i>clearly erroneous</i> conclusion. In fact, there is actually no constitutional right of appeal.  By standard judicial custom most cases do get one appeal as long as they weren't dismissed with prejudice (for something like a patently frivolous claim, or for a case that clearly lacked standing like suing God).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Since this case is a brand new trial, there is likely little that cannot be brought back into play, for what little that's worth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages .
The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed .
In other words : Even if this motion to suppress objections fails , the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that .
Frankly , the motion is not as evil as people here will make it out to be , since the issue of ownership of the copyrights is n't really in dispute anyway , and it will save both sides time &amp; money to get to the important parts of the case.Another thing to note is that this appears to be a new trial , which is not the same thing as an appeal .
Despite what many people think , an appeal is not like a do-over of the original case .
Once the original trial has been carried out , an appeal can only be made of issues that were properly disputed and objected to at trial .
So , if a fact is established at trial , and there is no clear objection that is preserved for appeal , you ca n't argue it , even if you think that would be a great way to win the case during appeal .
An appeal is almost always about questions of law instead of fact as well , and appellate courts usually give a great deal of deference to what the factfinders ( usually the jury ) determined during the trial , and will only overturn or ( more commonly ) vacate a lower court 's factfinding if the jury reached a clearly erroneous conclusion .
In fact , there is actually no constitutional right of appeal .
By standard judicial custom most cases do get one appeal as long as they were n't dismissed with prejudice ( for something like a patently frivolous claim , or for a case that clearly lacked standing like suing God ) .
    Since this case is a brand new trial , there is likely little that can not be brought back into play , for what little that 's worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages.
The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed.
In other words: Even if this motion to suppress objections fails, the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that.
Frankly, the motion is not as evil as people here will make it out to be, since the issue of ownership of the copyrights isn't really in dispute anyway, and it will save both sides time &amp; money to get to the important parts of the case.Another thing to note is that this appears to be a new trial, which is not the same thing as an appeal.
Despite what many people think, an appeal is not like a do-over of the original case.
Once the original trial has been carried out, an appeal can only be made of issues that were properly disputed and objected to at trial.
So, if a fact is established at trial, and there is no clear objection that is preserved for appeal, you can't argue it, even if you think that would be a great way to win the case during appeal.
An appeal is almost always about questions of law instead of fact as well, and appellate courts usually give a great deal of deference to what the factfinders (usually the jury) determined during the trial, and will only overturn or (more commonly) vacate a lower court's factfinding if the jury reached a clearly erroneous conclusion.
In fact, there is actually no constitutional right of appeal.
By standard judicial custom most cases do get one appeal as long as they weren't dismissed with prejudice (for something like a patently frivolous claim, or for a case that clearly lacked standing like suing God).
    Since this case is a brand new trial, there is likely little that cannot be brought back into play, for what little that's worth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229989</id>
	<title>Why they didn't fix that</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244221320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the value of the ?IAA's back catalog multiplied by a dozen or more because they <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_Term\_Extension\_Act" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">stole our commons</a> [wikipedia.org] the entire industry didn't get audited by the IRS.  They just get to keep that value, and move it offshore (hello Sony!).  Because they stole it fair and square.  The same reason applies here.
</p><p>When the state department pushes globalization of our repressive intellectual property regime, or even worse, it's the same reason: From the courthouse to the statehouse to the Whitehouse, they've sold us out.  Every last one.  They either know not what they do, or they don't care.  We can't do much about it right now because we have bigger fish to fry with issues of security both foreign and domestic.
</p><p>But eventually these greedy bastards will over reach and then they'll learn that their copyrights can be taken away, by constitutional amendment if necessary, and even monopoly and acts of congress can't save transcontinental rail when its day is done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the value of the ? IAA 's back catalog multiplied by a dozen or more because they stole our commons [ wikipedia.org ] the entire industry did n't get audited by the IRS .
They just get to keep that value , and move it offshore ( hello Sony ! ) .
Because they stole it fair and square .
The same reason applies here .
When the state department pushes globalization of our repressive intellectual property regime , or even worse , it 's the same reason : From the courthouse to the statehouse to the Whitehouse , they 've sold us out .
Every last one .
They either know not what they do , or they do n't care .
We ca n't do much about it right now because we have bigger fish to fry with issues of security both foreign and domestic .
But eventually these greedy bastards will over reach and then they 'll learn that their copyrights can be taken away , by constitutional amendment if necessary , and even monopoly and acts of congress ca n't save transcontinental rail when its day is done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the value of the ?IAA's back catalog multiplied by a dozen or more because they stole our commons [wikipedia.org] the entire industry didn't get audited by the IRS.
They just get to keep that value, and move it offshore (hello Sony!).
Because they stole it fair and square.
The same reason applies here.
When the state department pushes globalization of our repressive intellectual property regime, or even worse, it's the same reason: From the courthouse to the statehouse to the Whitehouse, they've sold us out.
Every last one.
They either know not what they do, or they don't care.
We can't do much about it right now because we have bigger fish to fry with issues of security both foreign and domestic.
But eventually these greedy bastards will over reach and then they'll learn that their copyrights can be taken away, by constitutional amendment if necessary, and even monopoly and acts of congress can't save transcontinental rail when its day is done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28232111</id>
	<title>Re:it flies in the face of common sense</title>
	<author>UnixUnix</author>
	<datestamp>1244297220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Well, there IS a difference.  When you appeal from a decision you may be limited as to what issues you may raise, and indeed there are rules, with good reason, about matters not brought up at trial level.  This, however, is not an appeal, it is a new trial, and it seems standard trial procedure ought to apply.  I did not see any support for the RIAA position in their motion document, the only authority they quote is a... request for judicial notice, which even to me (not an expert like NYCL) seems kinda laughable.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there IS a difference .
When you appeal from a decision you may be limited as to what issues you may raise , and indeed there are rules , with good reason , about matters not brought up at trial level .
This , however , is not an appeal , it is a new trial , and it seems standard trial procedure ought to apply .
I did not see any support for the RIAA position in their motion document , the only authority they quote is a... request for judicial notice , which even to me ( not an expert like NYCL ) seems kinda laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Well, there IS a difference.
When you appeal from a decision you may be limited as to what issues you may raise, and indeed there are rules, with good reason, about matters not brought up at trial level.
This, however, is not an appeal, it is a new trial, and it seems standard trial procedure ought to apply.
I did not see any support for the RIAA position in their motion document, the only authority they quote is a... request for judicial notice, which even to me (not an expert like NYCL) seems kinda laughable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229139</id>
	<title>Re:Finally challenging 'work for hire' copyright b</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244208600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've never understood why books are (C) Author, and music is (C) Publisher</p></div><p>from Salon article in January 2000:<a href="http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html" title="salon.com">Courtney Love does the math</a> [salon.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Last November [2000], a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act.

He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.</p></div><p>That Mitch Glazier, the congresional aide? now an <a href="http://www.digitalmediaconference.com/glazier\_bio.htm" title="digitalmed...erence.com">RIAA lobbyist</a> [digitalmed...erence.com]
It certainly wasn't an accident.



I've never understood why they just didn't fix that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never understood why books are ( C ) Author , and music is ( C ) Publisherfrom Salon article in January 2000 : Courtney Love does the math [ salon.com ] Last November [ 2000 ] , a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier , with the support of the RIAA , added a " technical amendment " to a bill that defined recorded music as " works for hire " under the 1978 Copyright Act .
He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over .
By the time artists found out about the change , it was too late .
The bill was on its way to the White House for the president 's signature.That Mitch Glazier , the congresional aide ?
now an RIAA lobbyist [ digitalmed...erence.com ] It certainly was n't an accident .
I 've never understood why they just did n't fix that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never understood why books are (C) Author, and music is (C) Publisherfrom Salon article in January 2000:Courtney Love does the math [salon.com] Last November [2000], a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act.
He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over.
By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late.
The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.That Mitch Glazier, the congresional aide?
now an RIAA lobbyist [digitalmed...erence.com]
It certainly wasn't an accident.
I've never understood why they just didn't fix that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228593</id>
	<title>don't you just love...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244203320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>visiting NYCL's blog?  Oh wait, no I don't.  I visited Slashdot too bad so many of these stories crop up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>visiting NYCL 's blog ?
Oh wait , no I do n't .
I visited Slashdot too bad so many of these stories crop up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>visiting NYCL's blog?
Oh wait, no I don't.
I visited Slashdot too bad so many of these stories crop up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28247377</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244399460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, considering the title says "Objections" and implies to all the armchair lawyers on slashdot that the RIAA's lawyers want to prevent all objections and not just objecting to the RIAA's copyright registration documents. Supplying pitchforks and torches to the mob FTL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , considering the title says " Objections " and implies to all the armchair lawyers on slashdot that the RIAA 's lawyers want to prevent all objections and not just objecting to the RIAA 's copyright registration documents .
Supplying pitchforks and torches to the mob FTL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, considering the title says "Objections" and implies to all the armchair lawyers on slashdot that the RIAA's lawyers want to prevent all objections and not just objecting to the RIAA's copyright registration documents.
Supplying pitchforks and torches to the mob FTL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229329</id>
	<title>Re:Finally challenging 'work for hire' copyright b</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244211780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've never understood why books are (C) Author, and music is (C) Publisher.</p></div></blockquote><p>They're not always. Take a glance at your tech refs by multiple authors. Sometimes it's (C)Publisher, and sometimes it's (C)Authors.</p><p>In fiction it's usually (C)Author, but there's very little music where that much of the work is done by a solo artist. I suspect if you can find any such albums in your collection, chances are they're (C)Author.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never understood why books are ( C ) Author , and music is ( C ) Publisher.They 're not always .
Take a glance at your tech refs by multiple authors .
Sometimes it 's ( C ) Publisher , and sometimes it 's ( C ) Authors.In fiction it 's usually ( C ) Author , but there 's very little music where that much of the work is done by a solo artist .
I suspect if you can find any such albums in your collection , chances are they 're ( C ) Author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never understood why books are (C) Author, and music is (C) Publisher.They're not always.
Take a glance at your tech refs by multiple authors.
Sometimes it's (C)Publisher, and sometimes it's (C)Authors.In fiction it's usually (C)Author, but there's very little music where that much of the work is done by a solo artist.
I suspect if you can find any such albums in your collection, chances are they're (C)Author.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230543</id>
	<title>Re:There is a great idea hidden in the summary!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're all about openness here. Open source, open standards...openness. We've seen the good it can do. A good example is the Linux kernel. What makes it so good? What makes it work so well? The many thousands of eyes looking at it every day. It is open, and has a lot of good and talented people studying it every day.

So why not open up cases like these to public scrutiny and try for the same result?</p> </div><p>I thought that's exactly what I've been doing these past 4 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all about openness here .
Open source , open standards...openness .
We 've seen the good it can do .
A good example is the Linux kernel .
What makes it so good ?
What makes it work so well ?
The many thousands of eyes looking at it every day .
It is open , and has a lot of good and talented people studying it every day .
So why not open up cases like these to public scrutiny and try for the same result ?
I thought that 's exactly what I 've been doing these past 4 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all about openness here.
Open source, open standards...openness.
We've seen the good it can do.
A good example is the Linux kernel.
What makes it so good?
What makes it work so well?
The many thousands of eyes looking at it every day.
It is open, and has a lot of good and talented people studying it every day.
So why not open up cases like these to public scrutiny and try for the same result?
I thought that's exactly what I've been doing these past 4 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228929</id>
	<title>Panic.  Oh yeah.  Panic.  Oh yeah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244206020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA lawyers gave the defendant's lawyers notice that they were going to introduce documentary evidence at trial.  If the defendant's lawyers don't object, then the documentary evidence comes into evidence without objection.  If the defendant's lawyers DO object, then the RIAA lawyers have to prove that the document is what it purports to be (that is, a real federal copyright public record).</p><p>It appears that the alleged pirate's lawyers did object.  HA!</p><p>Typically proving a government copyright document is what it is is accomplished by getting a sealed certificate from the government attached to a copy of the document.  It's really easy and relatively cheap.  But the RIAA hasn't done this and the trial date is screaming down on them.</p><p>They are in panic-street because they understand just how crucial that document is!</p><p>It's a lawyer's nightmare--messing up something easy to prove but essential to prove.  They're hoping that the trial judge will bail them out somehow by letting their UN-certified public record copyright document into evidence.</p><p>I can understand their pain, but I can't have too much sympathy because when they have the upper hand, they are very hard.  Now, they are soft and whiny to the trial judge, begging for mercy and an escape from the operation of the law.  HA!<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA lawyers gave the defendant 's lawyers notice that they were going to introduce documentary evidence at trial .
If the defendant 's lawyers do n't object , then the documentary evidence comes into evidence without objection .
If the defendant 's lawyers DO object , then the RIAA lawyers have to prove that the document is what it purports to be ( that is , a real federal copyright public record ) .It appears that the alleged pirate 's lawyers did object .
HA ! Typically proving a government copyright document is what it is is accomplished by getting a sealed certificate from the government attached to a copy of the document .
It 's really easy and relatively cheap .
But the RIAA has n't done this and the trial date is screaming down on them.They are in panic-street because they understand just how crucial that document is ! It 's a lawyer 's nightmare--messing up something easy to prove but essential to prove .
They 're hoping that the trial judge will bail them out somehow by letting their UN-certified public record copyright document into evidence.I can understand their pain , but I ca n't have too much sympathy because when they have the upper hand , they are very hard .
Now , they are soft and whiny to the trial judge , begging for mercy and an escape from the operation of the law .
HA !  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA lawyers gave the defendant's lawyers notice that they were going to introduce documentary evidence at trial.
If the defendant's lawyers don't object, then the documentary evidence comes into evidence without objection.
If the defendant's lawyers DO object, then the RIAA lawyers have to prove that the document is what it purports to be (that is, a real federal copyright public record).It appears that the alleged pirate's lawyers did object.
HA!Typically proving a government copyright document is what it is is accomplished by getting a sealed certificate from the government attached to a copy of the document.
It's really easy and relatively cheap.
But the RIAA hasn't done this and the trial date is screaming down on them.They are in panic-street because they understand just how crucial that document is!It's a lawyer's nightmare--messing up something easy to prove but essential to prove.
They're hoping that the trial judge will bail them out somehow by letting their UN-certified public record copyright document into evidence.I can understand their pain, but I can't have too much sympathy because when they have the upper hand, they are very hard.
Now, they are soft and whiny to the trial judge, begging for mercy and an escape from the operation of the law.
HA!
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229719</id>
	<title>Oblig. "Liar, Liar"</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1244216700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lawyer: I object!<p>
Judge:  On what grounds?</p><p>
Lawyer: That it's damaging to my case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyer : I object !
Judge : On what grounds ?
Lawyer : That it 's damaging to my case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyer: I object!
Judge:  On what grounds?
Lawyer: That it's damaging to my case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229151</id>
	<title>Why Do We Pay These People To Beat Us Up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244208720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're paying these people's salaries.</p><p>No-one else is.</p><p>Why are we doing this?</p><p>Why do we continue to pay them to beat us up?</p><p>Boy<br>Cott<br>RI<br>AA</p><p>Boy<br>Cott<br>RI<br>AA</p><p>Boycott RIAA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're paying these people 's salaries.No-one else is.Why are we doing this ? Why do we continue to pay them to beat us up ? BoyCottRIAABoyCottRIAABoycott RIAA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're paying these people's salaries.No-one else is.Why are we doing this?Why do we continue to pay them to beat us up?BoyCottRIAABoyCottRIAABoycott RIAA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229817</id>
	<title>Re:Finally challenging 'work for hire' copyright b</title>
	<author>mistahkurtz</author>
	<datestamp>1244218140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>RIAA: "Fix what?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA : " Fix what ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA: "Fix what?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228745</id>
	<title>Hmm...</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1244204340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>NewYorkCountryLawyer, This isn't the clearest summary you've written. I'd suggest that next time, you just give us the facts, for instance the first sentence of your summary would have been enough, and then you just let us do our part and let us add the outrage, the anger, the guessing, and the confusing remarks, all by ourselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer , This is n't the clearest summary you 've written .
I 'd suggest that next time , you just give us the facts , for instance the first sentence of your summary would have been enough , and then you just let us do our part and let us add the outrage , the anger , the guessing , and the confusing remarks , all by ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer, This isn't the clearest summary you've written.
I'd suggest that next time, you just give us the facts, for instance the first sentence of your summary would have been enough, and then you just let us do our part and let us add the outrage, the anger, the guessing, and the confusing remarks, all by ourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229093</id>
	<title>Reminds me of "Encounter at far point"</title>
	<author>earthforce\_1</author>
	<datestamp>1244207880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Picard's trial by Q for the crimes of humanity...</p><p>Q: Court is now in session. How do you plead?<br>Picard: Not guilty.<br>Q: This court hereby finds you guilty.<br>Picard: Of what?<br>Q: Of pleading not guilty.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; .<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; .<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; .</p><p>Q: If he utters any other word but "Guilty" kill him.</p><p>--<br>My rights don't need management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Picard 's trial by Q for the crimes of humanity...Q : Court is now in session .
How do you plead ? Picard : Not guilty.Q : This court hereby finds you guilty.Picard : Of what ? Q : Of pleading not guilty .
        .
        .
        .Q : If he utters any other word but " Guilty " kill him.--My rights do n't need management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Picard's trial by Q for the crimes of humanity...Q: Court is now in session.
How do you plead?Picard: Not guilty.Q: This court hereby finds you guilty.Picard: Of what?Q: Of pleading not guilty.
        .
        .
        .Q: If he utters any other word but "Guilty" kill him.--My rights don't need management.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28233133</id>
	<title>IANAL</title>
	<author>PinkyDead</author>
	<datestamp>1244304480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I'm probably qualified to represent the RIAA.  If they need my help, they have my IP Address.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm probably qualified to represent the RIAA .
If they need my help , they have my IP Address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm probably qualified to represent the RIAA.
If they need my help, they have my IP Address.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229925</id>
	<title>Re:What a non-story</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1244219880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute?</p> </div><p>The party who has the burden of proof of proving ownership of copyrights is saying it. Hmmmm. I wonder why. If it was so easy for them to prove, and beyond dispute, why make an issue out of it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute ?
The party who has the burden of proof of proving ownership of copyrights is saying it .
Hmmmm. I wonder why .
If it was so easy for them to prove , and beyond dispute , why make an issue out of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute?
The party who has the burden of proof of proving ownership of copyrights is saying it.
Hmmmm. I wonder why.
If it was so easy for them to prove, and beyond dispute, why make an issue out of it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229757</id>
	<title>Barratry</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1244217180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She should file a motion to prohibit the RIAA lawyers from engaging in barratry. To try and deprive someone of their due process when they themselves are guilty of using the most underhanded tactics to get their way is scum of the earth level thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She should file a motion to prohibit the RIAA lawyers from engaging in barratry .
To try and deprive someone of their due process when they themselves are guilty of using the most underhanded tactics to get their way is scum of the earth level thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She should file a motion to prohibit the RIAA lawyers from engaging in barratry.
To try and deprive someone of their due process when they themselves are guilty of using the most underhanded tactics to get their way is scum of the earth level thinking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228951</id>
	<title>Sand in eyes</title>
	<author>Fuzzums</author>
	<datestamp>1244206260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since NewYorkCountryLawyer writes there is no ground for the motions of the RIAA, the question is why do they want to waste the defendant's time?<br>Perhaps it's a distraction from something more serious that they don't want them to notice?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since NewYorkCountryLawyer writes there is no ground for the motions of the RIAA , the question is why do they want to waste the defendant 's time ? Perhaps it 's a distraction from something more serious that they do n't want them to notice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since NewYorkCountryLawyer writes there is no ground for the motions of the RIAA, the question is why do they want to waste the defendant's time?Perhaps it's a distraction from something more serious that they don't want them to notice?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228997</id>
	<title>Finally challenging 'work for hire' copyright bs</title>
	<author>zimbolite</author>
	<datestamp>1244206740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm hoping that the whole thing unravels and their "we're in this for the artist" is shown for what it's worth.</p><p>I've never understood why books are (C) Author, and music is (C) Publisher.</p><p>mixle</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping that the whole thing unravels and their " we 're in this for the artist " is shown for what it 's worth.I 've never understood why books are ( C ) Author , and music is ( C ) Publisher.mixle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping that the whole thing unravels and their "we're in this for the artist" is shown for what it's worth.I've never understood why books are (C) Author, and music is (C) Publisher.mixle</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228743</id>
	<title>Re:it flies in the face of common sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244204340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a second trial. As Ray points out, there's no chance of the motion succeeding, but to play Devil's advocate: I think the reason the first trial was thrown out is an incorrect jury instruction ("making available"). In theory, I suppose you could argue this could be rectified without substantial deviation from the original trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a second trial .
As Ray points out , there 's no chance of the motion succeeding , but to play Devil 's advocate : I think the reason the first trial was thrown out is an incorrect jury instruction ( " making available " ) .
In theory , I suppose you could argue this could be rectified without substantial deviation from the original trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a second trial.
As Ray points out, there's no chance of the motion succeeding, but to play Devil's advocate: I think the reason the first trial was thrown out is an incorrect jury instruction ("making available").
In theory, I suppose you could argue this could be rectified without substantial deviation from the original trial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228819</id>
	<title>Re:it flies in the face of common sense</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1244205060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not an appeal.  It is a new trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not an appeal .
It is a new trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not an appeal.
It is a new trial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228987</id>
	<title>Something along the lines of</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244206620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>inb4...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>inb4... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>inb4...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228665</id>
	<title>Procedurally Invalid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244203860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say it's essentially impossible; but you said too that it was "procedurally invalid" for them to file a certain injunction in another recent case.</p><p>I'm not saying that you - as a matter of legal procedure - are wrong. I'm just saying that they don't seem to be playing by the same rules as everyone else in this game.</p><p>I really hope that you're right. I really, really do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say it 's essentially impossible ; but you said too that it was " procedurally invalid " for them to file a certain injunction in another recent case.I 'm not saying that you - as a matter of legal procedure - are wrong .
I 'm just saying that they do n't seem to be playing by the same rules as everyone else in this game.I really hope that you 're right .
I really , really do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say it's essentially impossible; but you said too that it was "procedurally invalid" for them to file a certain injunction in another recent case.I'm not saying that you - as a matter of legal procedure - are wrong.
I'm just saying that they don't seem to be playing by the same rules as everyone else in this game.I really hope that you're right.
I really, really do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229663</id>
	<title>Re:What a non-story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244215980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>or for a case that clearly lacked standing like suing God.</p></div><p>Actually, I would argue that one would have standing to sue God.  After all, if I were the victim of what is established in court as an "act of God", and thus my insurance would not cover it, then I would certainly have standing to sue "God".</p><p>The problem is that the court would lack jurisdiction, and there would be a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.</p><p>But I think "lack of jurisdiction" would be the biggest one.  Although, come to think of it, I would like to try and sue God, just to see if anyone would show up in his defense...</p><p>Of course, the question would be "who does one serve the papers to?"  I would go with the Pope myself...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or for a case that clearly lacked standing like suing God.Actually , I would argue that one would have standing to sue God .
After all , if I were the victim of what is established in court as an " act of God " , and thus my insurance would not cover it , then I would certainly have standing to sue " God " .The problem is that the court would lack jurisdiction , and there would be a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.But I think " lack of jurisdiction " would be the biggest one .
Although , come to think of it , I would like to try and sue God , just to see if anyone would show up in his defense...Of course , the question would be " who does one serve the papers to ?
" I would go with the Pope myself.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or for a case that clearly lacked standing like suing God.Actually, I would argue that one would have standing to sue God.
After all, if I were the victim of what is established in court as an "act of God", and thus my insurance would not cover it, then I would certainly have standing to sue "God".The problem is that the court would lack jurisdiction, and there would be a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.But I think "lack of jurisdiction" would be the biggest one.
Although, come to think of it, I would like to try and sue God, just to see if anyone would show up in his defense...Of course, the question would be "who does one serve the papers to?
"  I would go with the Pope myself...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228679</id>
	<title>Legal S&amp;M</title>
	<author>docbrody</author>
	<datestamp>1244203920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just about tying them up and strapping them down with endless motions and other legal hassles so that it gives any other lawyer thinking about taking on the RIAA (pro bono or not) a major reason to think about it twice.  they don't even excpect to win these motions, its just about burying the other side in paper work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just about tying them up and strapping them down with endless motions and other legal hassles so that it gives any other lawyer thinking about taking on the RIAA ( pro bono or not ) a major reason to think about it twice .
they do n't even excpect to win these motions , its just about burying the other side in paper work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just about tying them up and strapping them down with endless motions and other legal hassles so that it gives any other lawyer thinking about taking on the RIAA (pro bono or not) a major reason to think about it twice.
they don't even excpect to win these motions, its just about burying the other side in paper work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229023</id>
	<title>Umm... do I get this right?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244206980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this essentially:</p><p>"Your honor, we ask that the defendant is not allowed to make any statement in her defense"<br>"What? Why?"<br>"'cause else we'd lose the case, duh!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this essentially : " Your honor , we ask that the defendant is not allowed to make any statement in her defense " " What ?
Why ? " " 'cause else we 'd lose the case , duh !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this essentially:"Your honor, we ask that the defendant is not allowed to make any statement in her defense""What?
Why?""'cause else we'd lose the case, duh!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228655</id>
	<title>Re:don't you just love...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244203740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you really don't want to see anything by NYCL, go to your preferences, then exclusions, and type in his name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really do n't want to see anything by NYCL , go to your preferences , then exclusions , and type in his name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you really don't want to see anything by NYCL, go to your preferences, then exclusions, and type in his name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229779</id>
	<title>Re:Finally challenging 'work for hire' copyright b</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244217720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the congressmen took bribes^W contributions from the RIAA, but wanted cover to make the technical amendment look like an "accident" so they could claim they didn't deliberately sell their constituents down the river? Just a guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the congressmen took bribes ^ W contributions from the RIAA , but wanted cover to make the technical amendment look like an " accident " so they could claim they did n't deliberately sell their constituents down the river ?
Just a guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the congressmen took bribes^W contributions from the RIAA, but wanted cover to make the technical amendment look like an "accident" so they could claim they didn't deliberately sell their constituents down the river?
Just a guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28233955</id>
	<title>Re:What a non-story</title>
	<author>azrider</author>
	<datestamp>1244309400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute? Of course, we don't have any evidence that the RIAA lawyers are lying, but in a case where they already tried to get $200,000 off Mrs. Thomas, I think the defendant shouldn't have to take their word for it when they claim copyright ownership.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The issue here quite possibly is <i>whether or not the <b>RIAA</b> has standing to sue</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute ?
Of course , we do n't have any evidence that the RIAA lawyers are lying , but in a case where they already tried to get $ 200,000 off Mrs. Thomas , I think the defendant should n't have to take their word for it when they claim copyright ownership .
The issue here quite possibly is whether or not the RIAA has standing to sue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute?
Of course, we don't have any evidence that the RIAA lawyers are lying, but in a case where they already tried to get $200,000 off Mrs. Thomas, I think the defendant shouldn't have to take their word for it when they claim copyright ownership.
The issue here quite possibly is whether or not the RIAA has standing to sue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228827</id>
	<title>if the jedge has any good sense</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1244205120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this will be like a large caliber bullet fired in to the RIAA's foot</htmltext>
<tokenext>this will be like a large caliber bullet fired in to the RIAA 's foot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this will be like a large caliber bullet fired in to the RIAA's foot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229937</id>
	<title>This is not a criminal trial</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244220180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a criminal trial the prosecutor would need to prove she stole a song.
</p><p>In a civil trial the plaintiff must prove not only that she violated a copyright, but that she violated <i>theirs</i> before they can claim they were harmed and so are due relief.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a criminal trial the prosecutor would need to prove she stole a song .
In a civil trial the plaintiff must prove not only that she violated a copyright , but that she violated theirs before they can claim they were harmed and so are due relief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a criminal trial the prosecutor would need to prove she stole a song.
In a civil trial the plaintiff must prove not only that she violated a copyright, but that she violated theirs before they can claim they were harmed and so are due relief.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230173</id>
	<title>There is a great idea hidden in the summary!</title>
	<author>Weaselmancer</author>
	<datestamp>1244223660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I'm guessing that the RIAA lawyers realized they have some kind of problem with their paperwork, and thought this a clever way of short-circuiting it. Instead, of course, they have merely red-flagged it for Ms. Thomas-Rasset's new legal team.</i>

</p><p>Ok, here's the idea this phrase gave me.

</p><p>We're all about openness here.  Open source, open standards...openness.  We've seen the good it can do.  A good example is the Linux kernel.  What makes it so good?  What makes it work so well?  The many thousands of eyes looking at it every day.  It is <i>open</i>, and has a lot of good and talented people studying it every day.

</p><p>So why not open up cases like these to public scrutiny and try for the same result?

</p><p>Look at what's happened here.  The RIAA had their team look at it, they found a problem, and tried to sidestep it.  In doing so they basically pointed a big glowing arrow at the things in the case they would wish to have hidden.

</p><p>Well...we could do that too.  Right?

</p><p>If there were a place where all the info were made available, and some sort of public campaign to let "us geeks" know about it...we would read it.  "Help us fight for your rights against the RIAA - donate 15 minutes of your time.  Click this link."  That kind of a thing.  A little bit here, a little bit there.  If we were to take the Linux management concept and apply it to a legal case (a few high level moderators, lots of low level contributors)...who knows what other red flags the community might find?  There are a lot of surprising sorts in the community, and I'd bet we actually do have quite a few legally trained folks who might want to do some small increment of good over a boring lunch break, for instance.

</p><p>If every person in this thread were to read a paragraph or two and try to spot problems...well yeah, we're not lawyers but we all can read pretty much.  Maybe something might come of it.

</p><p>Anyways, it's just an idea.  Maybe a good one and maybe a bad one.  Fans and Flames to follow, see below. =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that the RIAA lawyers realized they have some kind of problem with their paperwork , and thought this a clever way of short-circuiting it .
Instead , of course , they have merely red-flagged it for Ms. Thomas-Rasset 's new legal team .
Ok , here 's the idea this phrase gave me .
We 're all about openness here .
Open source , open standards...openness .
We 've seen the good it can do .
A good example is the Linux kernel .
What makes it so good ?
What makes it work so well ?
The many thousands of eyes looking at it every day .
It is open , and has a lot of good and talented people studying it every day .
So why not open up cases like these to public scrutiny and try for the same result ?
Look at what 's happened here .
The RIAA had their team look at it , they found a problem , and tried to sidestep it .
In doing so they basically pointed a big glowing arrow at the things in the case they would wish to have hidden .
Well...we could do that too .
Right ? If there were a place where all the info were made available , and some sort of public campaign to let " us geeks " know about it...we would read it .
" Help us fight for your rights against the RIAA - donate 15 minutes of your time .
Click this link .
" That kind of a thing .
A little bit here , a little bit there .
If we were to take the Linux management concept and apply it to a legal case ( a few high level moderators , lots of low level contributors ) ...who knows what other red flags the community might find ?
There are a lot of surprising sorts in the community , and I 'd bet we actually do have quite a few legally trained folks who might want to do some small increment of good over a boring lunch break , for instance .
If every person in this thread were to read a paragraph or two and try to spot problems...well yeah , we 're not lawyers but we all can read pretty much .
Maybe something might come of it .
Anyways , it 's just an idea .
Maybe a good one and maybe a bad one .
Fans and Flames to follow , see below .
= )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm guessing that the RIAA lawyers realized they have some kind of problem with their paperwork, and thought this a clever way of short-circuiting it.
Instead, of course, they have merely red-flagged it for Ms. Thomas-Rasset's new legal team.
Ok, here's the idea this phrase gave me.
We're all about openness here.
Open source, open standards...openness.
We've seen the good it can do.
A good example is the Linux kernel.
What makes it so good?
What makes it work so well?
The many thousands of eyes looking at it every day.
It is open, and has a lot of good and talented people studying it every day.
So why not open up cases like these to public scrutiny and try for the same result?
Look at what's happened here.
The RIAA had their team look at it, they found a problem, and tried to sidestep it.
In doing so they basically pointed a big glowing arrow at the things in the case they would wish to have hidden.
Well...we could do that too.
Right?

If there were a place where all the info were made available, and some sort of public campaign to let "us geeks" know about it...we would read it.
"Help us fight for your rights against the RIAA - donate 15 minutes of your time.
Click this link.
"  That kind of a thing.
A little bit here, a little bit there.
If we were to take the Linux management concept and apply it to a legal case (a few high level moderators, lots of low level contributors)...who knows what other red flags the community might find?
There are a lot of surprising sorts in the community, and I'd bet we actually do have quite a few legally trained folks who might want to do some small increment of good over a boring lunch break, for instance.
If every person in this thread were to read a paragraph or two and try to spot problems...well yeah, we're not lawyers but we all can read pretty much.
Maybe something might come of it.
Anyways, it's just an idea.
Maybe a good one and maybe a bad one.
Fans and Flames to follow, see below.
=)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229859</id>
	<title>Further RIAA motions</title>
	<author>cheebie</author>
	<datestamp>1244218800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The defendant shall be required to bring a parrot to trial each day and answer all inquiries with the phrase "Yar, I be a salty sea dog".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The defendant shall be required to bring a parrot to trial each day and answer all inquiries with the phrase " Yar , I be a salty sea dog " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The defendant shall be required to bring a parrot to trial each day and answer all inquiries with the phrase "Yar, I be a salty sea dog".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228741</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244204340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And nothing of value was lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And nothing of value was lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And nothing of value was lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229031</id>
	<title>Re:Sand in eyes</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1244207040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, why *wouldn't* they want to waste the opposition's time?  A better question is why do they want to waste the judge's time? (and their own.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , why * would n't * they want to waste the opposition 's time ?
A better question is why do they want to waste the judge 's time ?
( and their own .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, why *wouldn't* they want to waste the opposition's time?
A better question is why do they want to waste the judge's time?
(and their own.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28231659</id>
	<title>Sounds like schoolyard bullying</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1244290920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><ol><li>You are not allowed to defend yourself</li><li>You can not attack back</li><li> <b>Your yells for help are not heard</b> </li><li>And if you do survive, you can neither charge me or sue me.</li></ol></div><p>FTFY.  Were we not talking about schoolyard bullying?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not allowed to defend yourselfYou can not attack back Your yells for help are not heard And if you do survive , you can neither charge me or sue me.FTFY .
Were we not talking about schoolyard bullying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not allowed to defend yourselfYou can not attack back Your yells for help are not heard And if you do survive, you can neither charge me or sue me.FTFY.
Were we not talking about schoolyard bullying?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229009</id>
	<title>What they're really doing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244206860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In recent news, the RIAA filed several motions to have Jammie's lawyer charge her more than she can pay. Internet enraged. Newscast torrented worldwide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In recent news , the RIAA filed several motions to have Jammie 's lawyer charge her more than she can pay .
Internet enraged .
Newscast torrented worldwide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In recent news, the RIAA filed several motions to have Jammie's lawyer charge her more than she can pay.
Internet enraged.
Newscast torrented worldwide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229343</id>
	<title>Re:Finally challenging 'work for hire' copyright b</title>
	<author>mr\_matticus</author>
	<datestamp>1244212020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not really the whole story, though, and the article is misleading in parts.</p><p>The fundamental reason why</p><p>Authors of books write the books, and use publishers for marketing and printing.  Publishers take a cut of sales to pay for their services.</p><p>Music, on the other hand, is more complex.  You have a copyright on the composition, on the lyrics, and on the sound recording.  In order to gain access to the professional recording services of the record label, you have to contract with them, and though you are performing the song, it is the studio and its employees providing the lion's share of the work--sound designers, studio staff, technical people, etc.  The labels therefore traditionally owned the sound recording copyright, as the studios were the "authors" of the recording, and the artists merely "performers".  (In the same way, a film screenplay copyright doesn't become the actors' when they perform it for money.)  The minor amendment in 2000 did not change that.</p><p>Music artists who do, in fact, write their own music and lyrics also own the copyrights on the musical work (unless they've traded or sold them).  The studio copyright on the back of the CD is for the sound recording, which is not a musical work.  If you were to acquire the sheet music to the same songs, the copyright would likely be a different entity.  Many popular acts, however, are totally studio creations--the label hires the composers, lyricists, and performers.  The label owns just about all the copyrights in that situation.</p><p>The problem is that music studios are now becoming something more <em>like</em> book publishers--their services are really just mass production and marketing, and accordingly, with groups creating their own professional-grade recordings without the studios and thus keeping those copyrights as well, the studios are left with less actual power and will soon face the consequences of that.  When they are no longer needed to make the sound recordings, they can't extort the artists quite as badly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not really the whole story , though , and the article is misleading in parts.The fundamental reason whyAuthors of books write the books , and use publishers for marketing and printing .
Publishers take a cut of sales to pay for their services.Music , on the other hand , is more complex .
You have a copyright on the composition , on the lyrics , and on the sound recording .
In order to gain access to the professional recording services of the record label , you have to contract with them , and though you are performing the song , it is the studio and its employees providing the lion 's share of the work--sound designers , studio staff , technical people , etc .
The labels therefore traditionally owned the sound recording copyright , as the studios were the " authors " of the recording , and the artists merely " performers " .
( In the same way , a film screenplay copyright does n't become the actors ' when they perform it for money .
) The minor amendment in 2000 did not change that.Music artists who do , in fact , write their own music and lyrics also own the copyrights on the musical work ( unless they 've traded or sold them ) .
The studio copyright on the back of the CD is for the sound recording , which is not a musical work .
If you were to acquire the sheet music to the same songs , the copyright would likely be a different entity .
Many popular acts , however , are totally studio creations--the label hires the composers , lyricists , and performers .
The label owns just about all the copyrights in that situation.The problem is that music studios are now becoming something more like book publishers--their services are really just mass production and marketing , and accordingly , with groups creating their own professional-grade recordings without the studios and thus keeping those copyrights as well , the studios are left with less actual power and will soon face the consequences of that .
When they are no longer needed to make the sound recordings , they ca n't extort the artists quite as badly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not really the whole story, though, and the article is misleading in parts.The fundamental reason whyAuthors of books write the books, and use publishers for marketing and printing.
Publishers take a cut of sales to pay for their services.Music, on the other hand, is more complex.
You have a copyright on the composition, on the lyrics, and on the sound recording.
In order to gain access to the professional recording services of the record label, you have to contract with them, and though you are performing the song, it is the studio and its employees providing the lion's share of the work--sound designers, studio staff, technical people, etc.
The labels therefore traditionally owned the sound recording copyright, as the studios were the "authors" of the recording, and the artists merely "performers".
(In the same way, a film screenplay copyright doesn't become the actors' when they perform it for money.
)  The minor amendment in 2000 did not change that.Music artists who do, in fact, write their own music and lyrics also own the copyrights on the musical work (unless they've traded or sold them).
The studio copyright on the back of the CD is for the sound recording, which is not a musical work.
If you were to acquire the sheet music to the same songs, the copyright would likely be a different entity.
Many popular acts, however, are totally studio creations--the label hires the composers, lyricists, and performers.
The label owns just about all the copyrights in that situation.The problem is that music studios are now becoming something more like book publishers--their services are really just mass production and marketing, and accordingly, with groups creating their own professional-grade recordings without the studios and thus keeping those copyrights as well, the studios are left with less actual power and will soon face the consequences of that.
When they are no longer needed to make the sound recordings, they can't extort the artists quite as badly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228677</id>
	<title>Time eat money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244203860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, this does eat up a lot more time. That would have to be wearing on someone who does not have an unlimited budget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , this does eat up a lot more time .
That would have to be wearing on someone who does not have an unlimited budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, this does eat up a lot more time.
That would have to be wearing on someone who does not have an unlimited budget.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229357</id>
	<title>Re:it flies in the face of common sense</title>
	<author>Gerzel</author>
	<datestamp>1244212200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The appeal is to demonstrate that something was wrong in the first trial.  Thus while you could argue that evidence was withheld from the first trial in an appeal I don't think you could actually introduce that evidence in appeal...I am not a lawyer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The appeal is to demonstrate that something was wrong in the first trial .
Thus while you could argue that evidence was withheld from the first trial in an appeal I do n't think you could actually introduce that evidence in appeal...I am not a lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The appeal is to demonstrate that something was wrong in the first trial.
Thus while you could argue that evidence was withheld from the first trial in an appeal I don't think you could actually introduce that evidence in appeal...I am not a lawyer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228555</id>
	<title>Sorry...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244203140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but the RIAA has filed a motion to keep me from posting a comment...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but the RIAA has filed a motion to keep me from posting a comment.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but the RIAA has filed a motion to keep me from posting a comment...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28233809</id>
	<title>Cynicism</title>
	<author>DeanFox</author>
	<datestamp>1244308440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...snowball in Hell of being granted... ,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...that too is doomed."</p></div><p>I admire your confidence in our legal system.  It's kinda cute and adorable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  I'll wait for the rulings.  Just this last week I've seen rulings from appointed judges that simply defy reality that were, of course, in favor of their appointees.  People seem to be people as hard as one wishes they'd rise to their office.
<br> <br>
You're a very smart and educated man.  You're probably right.  My lack of judicial knowledge and experience however, affords me some cynicism of the outcome.  Frankly the trial shouldn't have made it this far.  That's argument one in my favor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
<br> <br>
-[d]-</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system ; ...snowball in Hell of being granted... , ...that too is doomed .
" I admire your confidence in our legal system .
It 's kinda cute and adorable : ) I 'll wait for the rulings .
Just this last week I 've seen rulings from appointed judges that simply defy reality that were , of course , in favor of their appointees .
People seem to be people as hard as one wishes they 'd rise to their office .
You 're a very smart and educated man .
You 're probably right .
My lack of judicial knowledge and experience however , affords me some cynicism of the outcome .
Frankly the trial should n't have made it this far .
That 's argument one in my favor : ) - [ d ] -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; ...snowball in Hell of being granted... , ...that too is doomed.
"I admire your confidence in our legal system.
It's kinda cute and adorable :)  I'll wait for the rulings.
Just this last week I've seen rulings from appointed judges that simply defy reality that were, of course, in favor of their appointees.
People seem to be people as hard as one wishes they'd rise to their office.
You're a very smart and educated man.
You're probably right.
My lack of judicial knowledge and experience however, affords me some cynicism of the outcome.
Frankly the trial shouldn't have made it this far.
That's argument one in my favor :)
 
-[d]-
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228713</id>
	<title>Newsflash from hell...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244204160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A snowball insulated with enough money lasts quite awhile here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A snowball insulated with enough money lasts quite awhile here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A snowball insulated with enough money lasts quite awhile here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569</id>
	<title>it flies in the face of common sense</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1244203260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the point in having a second trial or an appeal if you aren't allowed to do things differently?</p><p>Then again, this is law we're talking about, so logic and common sense probably don't apply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the point in having a second trial or an appeal if you are n't allowed to do things differently ? Then again , this is law we 're talking about , so logic and common sense probably do n't apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the point in having a second trial or an appeal if you aren't allowed to do things differently?Then again, this is law we're talking about, so logic and common sense probably don't apply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28261047</id>
	<title>As I predicted....</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1244478300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As you know, I predicted:<p><div class="quote"><p> To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections.</p></div><p>Today the judge <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/06/riaas-motion-to-bar-jammie-thomas.html" title="blogspot.com">denied the motion</a> [blogspot.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As you know , I predicted : To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system , let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system ; the RIAA 's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted , as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial # 2 , just because the lawyer she had in Trial # 1 did n't make similar objections.Today the judge denied the motion [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you know, I predicted: To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections.Today the judge denied the motion [blogspot.com].
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228727</id>
	<title>Re:it flies in the face of common sense</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1244204280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just might want to read the summary...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just might want to read the summary.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just might want to read the summary...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28233665</id>
	<title>Re:it flies in the face of common sense</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1244307480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I suppose you could argue this could be rectified without substantial deviation from the original trial.</p></div><p>Except that when the previous trial is thrown out and you have a new trial.... it's a <b>new trial</b>. You know, start over, do it again. The old trial is thrown out. You don't get to use any of it. This isn't just a disregard for basic law by the RIAA lawyers, it's a willful ignorance the English language.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose you could argue this could be rectified without substantial deviation from the original trial.Except that when the previous trial is thrown out and you have a new trial.... it 's a new trial .
You know , start over , do it again .
The old trial is thrown out .
You do n't get to use any of it .
This is n't just a disregard for basic law by the RIAA lawyers , it 's a willful ignorance the English language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose you could argue this could be rectified without substantial deviation from the original trial.Except that when the previous trial is thrown out and you have a new trial.... it's a new trial.
You know, start over, do it again.
The old trial is thrown out.
You don't get to use any of it.
This isn't just a disregard for basic law by the RIAA lawyers, it's a willful ignorance the English language.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229217</id>
	<title>Too bad</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1244209560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its too bad they cant throw the RIAA out of court for being stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its too bad they cant throw the RIAA out of court for being stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its too bad they cant throw the RIAA out of court for being stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28237221</id>
	<title>Kill all the lawyers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244289960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, wtf is wrong with the American legal system?<br>Any sane judge would charge the RIAA lawyer with contempt for that crap.</p><p>No wonder the system is silly when lawyers are allowed to get away with silly crap like that.  To respond to ridiculous motions like that with anything but heavy handed punishment allows the lawyers to destroy the credibility of the system.</p><p>It's a fscking courtroom.  If they won't take it seriously, the judge should bloody well make them take it seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , wtf is wrong with the American legal system ? Any sane judge would charge the RIAA lawyer with contempt for that crap.No wonder the system is silly when lawyers are allowed to get away with silly crap like that .
To respond to ridiculous motions like that with anything but heavy handed punishment allows the lawyers to destroy the credibility of the system.It 's a fscking courtroom .
If they wo n't take it seriously , the judge should bloody well make them take it seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, wtf is wrong with the American legal system?Any sane judge would charge the RIAA lawyer with contempt for that crap.No wonder the system is silly when lawyers are allowed to get away with silly crap like that.
To respond to ridiculous motions like that with anything but heavy handed punishment allows the lawyers to destroy the credibility of the system.It's a fscking courtroom.
If they won't take it seriously, the judge should bloody well make them take it seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28235309</id>
	<title>Rule 11 tag</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1244319060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the unaware:<br>11. You must have pictures to prove your statement.</p><p>I suppose it makes sense here...:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the unaware : 11 .
You must have pictures to prove your statement.I suppose it makes sense here... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the unaware:11.
You must have pictures to prove your statement.I suppose it makes sense here...:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28231293</id>
	<title>Re:it flies in the face of common sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244284200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. The requests they have made are so appalling they're certainly not made in good faith. They're wasting court time and indeed trying to restrict the lawful rights of their opponent, and the lawyers should be sanctioned accordingly.</p><p>Also is it me or has Slashdot's Javascript got appallingly slow again? Oh, wait, I'm using Firefox. God knows how bad IE must be!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
The requests they have made are so appalling they 're certainly not made in good faith .
They 're wasting court time and indeed trying to restrict the lawful rights of their opponent , and the lawyers should be sanctioned accordingly.Also is it me or has Slashdot 's Javascript got appallingly slow again ?
Oh , wait , I 'm using Firefox .
God knows how bad IE must be !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
The requests they have made are so appalling they're certainly not made in good faith.
They're wasting court time and indeed trying to restrict the lawful rights of their opponent, and the lawyers should be sanctioned accordingly.Also is it me or has Slashdot's Javascript got appallingly slow again?
Oh, wait, I'm using Firefox.
God knows how bad IE must be!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28233811</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig. "Liar, Liar"</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1244308440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a scene almost like that in an episode of Law and Order, only it was Jack McCoy talking to a US Attorney. Still funny as hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a scene almost like that in an episode of Law and Order , only it was Jack McCoy talking to a US Attorney .
Still funny as hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a scene almost like that in an episode of Law and Order, only it was Jack McCoy talking to a US Attorney.
Still funny as hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228597</id>
	<title>Gimmee a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244203380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be like me standing over you with a baseball bat and:

<br> <br>
a.  You are not allowed to defend yourself
<br> <br>
b.  You can not attack back
<br> <br>
c.  You can not yell for help
<br> <br>
d.  And if you do survive, you can neither charge me or sue me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be like me standing over you with a baseball bat and : a. You are not allowed to defend yourself b. You can not attack back c. You can not yell for help d. And if you do survive , you can neither charge me or sue me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be like me standing over you with a baseball bat and:

 
a.  You are not allowed to defend yourself
 
b.  You can not attack back
 
c.  You can not yell for help
 
d.  And if you do survive, you can neither charge me or sue me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230013</id>
	<title>lawyers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244221560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fuck attorneys period.  This is why you are hated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck attorneys period .
This is why you are hated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck attorneys period.
This is why you are hated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228573</id>
	<title>Is it a case of "no harm in trying"</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1244203260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or can the judicial assign penalties for such frivolous or even illegal requests?</p><p>It seems that the RIAA could bury the system under stacks of such requests if they wished, but if they're all groundless then perhaps penalties would be in order? Intentionally wasting the judicial's time shouldn't be allowed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or can the judicial assign penalties for such frivolous or even illegal requests ? It seems that the RIAA could bury the system under stacks of such requests if they wished , but if they 're all groundless then perhaps penalties would be in order ?
Intentionally wasting the judicial 's time should n't be allowed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or can the judicial assign penalties for such frivolous or even illegal requests?It seems that the RIAA could bury the system under stacks of such requests if they wished, but if they're all groundless then perhaps penalties would be in order?
Intentionally wasting the judicial's time shouldn't be allowed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230095</id>
	<title>Re:Finally challenging 'work for hire' copyright b</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1244222400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't the previous November have been in 1999? Or was the article from 2001?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't the previous November have been in 1999 ?
Or was the article from 2001 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't the previous November have been in 1999?
Or was the article from 2001?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230005</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Idea To Get Married</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1244221500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because they're married, doesn't mean she couldn't file bankruptcy on her own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because they 're married , does n't mean she could n't file bankruptcy on her own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because they're married, doesn't mean she couldn't file bankruptcy on her own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229039</id>
	<title>Re:What a non-story</title>
	<author>brain juice</author>
	<datestamp>1244207100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once the original trial has been carried out, an appeal can only be made of issues that were properly disputed and objected to at trial. So, if a fact is established at trial, and there is no clear objection that is preserved for appeal, you can't argue it, even if you think that would be a great way to win the case during appeal</p></div><p>
Almost.  You can argue ineffective assistance of counsel to get around that.
<br> <br>
Pretty standard argument in criminal felony appeals, not sure it applies to civil trials as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once the original trial has been carried out , an appeal can only be made of issues that were properly disputed and objected to at trial .
So , if a fact is established at trial , and there is no clear objection that is preserved for appeal , you ca n't argue it , even if you think that would be a great way to win the case during appeal Almost .
You can argue ineffective assistance of counsel to get around that .
Pretty standard argument in criminal felony appeals , not sure it applies to civil trials as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once the original trial has been carried out, an appeal can only be made of issues that were properly disputed and objected to at trial.
So, if a fact is established at trial, and there is no clear objection that is preserved for appeal, you can't argue it, even if you think that would be a great way to win the case during appeal
Almost.
You can argue ineffective assistance of counsel to get around that.
Pretty standard argument in criminal felony appeals, not sure it applies to civil trials as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228893</id>
	<title>Re:What a non-story</title>
	<author>Guil Rarey</author>
	<datestamp>1244205600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But these works are not works-for-hire and plaintiffs are not natural persons, so the entities suing are not necessarily the originators of the appropriate copyrights.  They should be the assignees (that's what royalties are all about) but that's not the same thing and is NOT an unfair question to ask them to prove that they have the appropriate assignments of copyright from the original creators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But these works are not works-for-hire and plaintiffs are not natural persons , so the entities suing are not necessarily the originators of the appropriate copyrights .
They should be the assignees ( that 's what royalties are all about ) but that 's not the same thing and is NOT an unfair question to ask them to prove that they have the appropriate assignments of copyright from the original creators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But these works are not works-for-hire and plaintiffs are not natural persons, so the entities suing are not necessarily the originators of the appropriate copyrights.
They should be the assignees (that's what royalties are all about) but that's not the same thing and is NOT an unfair question to ask them to prove that they have the appropriate assignments of copyright from the original creators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28231679</id>
	<title>Re:What a non-story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244291340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NYCL, if you are going to respond to every single post, then why don't you just invite us all 'round for a cup of tea?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NYCL , if you are going to respond to every single post , then why do n't you just invite us all 'round for a cup of tea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NYCL, if you are going to respond to every single post, then why don't you just invite us all 'round for a cup of tea?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228791</id>
	<title>I'm confused</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1244204820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but as near as I can figure out, although these motions might make sense for an appeal, they are totally inappropriate for a re-trial. Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they can't tell the difference?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but as near as I can figure out , although these motions might make sense for an appeal , they are totally inappropriate for a re-trial .
Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they ca n't tell the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but as near as I can figure out, although these motions might make sense for an appeal, they are totally inappropriate for a re-trial.
Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they can't tell the difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229073</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry...</title>
	<author>S-100</author>
	<datestamp>1244207640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn them.  I'll post whatever I w</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn them .
I 'll post whatever I w</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn them.
I'll post whatever I w</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229087</id>
	<title>Re:What a non-story</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1244207820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages. The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed. In other words: Even if this motion to suppress objections fails, the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that. Frankly, the motion is not as evil as people here will make it out to be, since the issue of ownership of the copyrights isn't really in dispute anyway, and it will save both sides time &amp; money to get to the important parts of the case.</p> </div><p>I would assume that when a record company owns the copyright to a work then they would have some paperwork proving it. Either the copyright registration, or some document where the previous copyright owner assigns the copyright to them. Record companies are big companies with excellent lawyers who would never lose that kind of paperwork. The conclusion is that if a record company doesn't have any paperwork demonstrating the ownership of a copyright, then it is most likely that they don't own the copyright. <br> <br>
So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute? Of course, we don't have any evidence that the RIAA lawyers are lying, but in a case where they already tried to get $200,000 off Mrs. Thomas, I think the defendant shouldn't have to take their word for it when they claim copyright ownership.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages .
The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed .
In other words : Even if this motion to suppress objections fails , the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that .
Frankly , the motion is not as evil as people here will make it out to be , since the issue of ownership of the copyrights is n't really in dispute anyway , and it will save both sides time &amp; money to get to the important parts of the case .
I would assume that when a record company owns the copyright to a work then they would have some paperwork proving it .
Either the copyright registration , or some document where the previous copyright owner assigns the copyright to them .
Record companies are big companies with excellent lawyers who would never lose that kind of paperwork .
The conclusion is that if a record company does n't have any paperwork demonstrating the ownership of a copyright , then it is most likely that they do n't own the copyright .
So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute ?
Of course , we do n't have any evidence that the RIAA lawyers are lying , but in a case where they already tried to get $ 200,000 off Mrs. Thomas , I think the defendant should n't have to take their word for it when they claim copyright ownership .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages.
The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed.
In other words: Even if this motion to suppress objections fails, the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that.
Frankly, the motion is not as evil as people here will make it out to be, since the issue of ownership of the copyrights isn't really in dispute anyway, and it will save both sides time &amp; money to get to the important parts of the case.
I would assume that when a record company owns the copyright to a work then they would have some paperwork proving it.
Either the copyright registration, or some document where the previous copyright owner assigns the copyright to them.
Record companies are big companies with excellent lawyers who would never lose that kind of paperwork.
The conclusion is that if a record company doesn't have any paperwork demonstrating the ownership of a copyright, then it is most likely that they don't own the copyright.
So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute?
Of course, we don't have any evidence that the RIAA lawyers are lying, but in a case where they already tried to get $200,000 off Mrs. Thomas, I think the defendant shouldn't have to take their word for it when they claim copyright ownership.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28232111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28233665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28231659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28231679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28231293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28247377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28233811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28233955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_222222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229859
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28231659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28230095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228743
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28233665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228747
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28231293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28232111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28233811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28247377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229925
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28231679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28233955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28228893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28229757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_222222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_222222.28237221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
