<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_10_1732211</id>
	<title>French Three-Strikes Law Ruled Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244657040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader was one of several to write with this news: <i>"The French 'Conseil Constitutionnel' just ruled that the recently voted '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadopi">Hadopi</a>' law, which enforces a 'three strikes and you're out' system, is <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2009/06/10/hadopi-le-conseil-constitutionnel-censure-la-riposte-graduee\_1205290\_651865.html">actually unconstitutional</a> [article in French; here's an <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/french-court-savages-3-strikes-law-tosses-it-out.ars">English-language article at Ars</a>]. They mainly make two points: 1) They argue that removing Internet access is equivalent to hindering a person's freedom of speech, and as such can only be decided by appointed judges. This removes all punitive power from the administrative body supposed to enforce the three-strikes rule; all it can do now is warn you that 'they're watching you.' 2) When illegal filesharing is detected, users have to prove their innocence. This is obviously contrary to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader was one of several to write with this news : " The French 'Conseil Constitutionnel ' just ruled that the recently voted 'Hadopi ' law , which enforces a 'three strikes and you 're out ' system , is actually unconstitutional [ article in French ; here 's an English-language article at Ars ] .
They mainly make two points : 1 ) They argue that removing Internet access is equivalent to hindering a person 's freedom of speech , and as such can only be decided by appointed judges .
This removes all punitive power from the administrative body supposed to enforce the three-strikes rule ; all it can do now is warn you that 'they 're watching you .
' 2 ) When illegal filesharing is detected , users have to prove their innocence .
This is obviously contrary to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader was one of several to write with this news: "The French 'Conseil Constitutionnel' just ruled that the recently voted 'Hadopi' law, which enforces a 'three strikes and you're out' system, is actually unconstitutional [article in French; here's an English-language article at Ars].
They mainly make two points: 1) They argue that removing Internet access is equivalent to hindering a person's freedom of speech, and as such can only be decided by appointed judges.
This removes all punitive power from the administrative body supposed to enforce the three-strikes rule; all it can do now is warn you that 'they're watching you.
' 2) When illegal filesharing is detected, users have to prove their innocence.
This is obviously contrary to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28289539</id>
	<title>Re:Stop the Presses!</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1244657400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Stop the presses! Common sense discovered in France!</p></div></blockquote><p>

Must have been accidentally dropped behind the metric system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop the presses !
Common sense discovered in France !
Must have been accidentally dropped behind the metric system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop the presses!
Common sense discovered in France!
Must have been accidentally dropped behind the metric system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282631</id>
	<title>right again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244660760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent.  Yet more proof that p2p users have the weight of ethics on their side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent .
Yet more proof that p2p users have the weight of ethics on their side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent.
Yet more proof that p2p users have the weight of ethics on their side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282677</id>
	<title>Court's self interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244660940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sort of makes sense, when you think about it.   Why should the courts cede power to a non-judicial "administrative body" to rule against people.   Stands to reason the courts would like a monopoly on those types of judgements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sort of makes sense , when you think about it .
Why should the courts cede power to a non-judicial " administrative body " to rule against people .
Stands to reason the courts would like a monopoly on those types of judgements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sort of makes sense, when you think about it.
Why should the courts cede power to a non-judicial "administrative body" to rule against people.
Stands to reason the courts would like a monopoly on those types of judgements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282707</id>
	<title>Re:Good News For Once</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244661060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The conseil constitutionnel is not a joke compared to the US Supreme Court, it's just something completely different. It validates or invalidates laws passed by parliement, when the supreme court is a judicial body, ruling over a court case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The conseil constitutionnel is not a joke compared to the US Supreme Court , it 's just something completely different .
It validates or invalidates laws passed by parliement , when the supreme court is a judicial body , ruling over a court case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The conseil constitutionnel is not a joke compared to the US Supreme Court, it's just something completely different.
It validates or invalidates laws passed by parliement, when the supreme court is a judicial body, ruling over a court case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282925</id>
	<title>Interesting development</title>
	<author>Mr.Fork</author>
	<datestamp>1244662080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I find interesting is the spin on privacy.  Here in Canada, our privacy law is one of the reasons why file sharing has been hard to crack down on.  The ability to remain anonymous and retain your privacy rights blocks most ISP's from packet-sniffing on behalf of 'special interest groups' - it also requires a court order: the judge will ask 'what proof do you have' and then ask these groups to explain how the gathered that proof without violation of Privacy laws. Even the current 'throttling' may be violating my privacy of internet usage as it would prove my ISP is scanning and reading my traffic information - which is a violation of my privacy rights of internet usage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find interesting is the spin on privacy .
Here in Canada , our privacy law is one of the reasons why file sharing has been hard to crack down on .
The ability to remain anonymous and retain your privacy rights blocks most ISP 's from packet-sniffing on behalf of 'special interest groups ' - it also requires a court order : the judge will ask 'what proof do you have ' and then ask these groups to explain how the gathered that proof without violation of Privacy laws .
Even the current 'throttling ' may be violating my privacy of internet usage as it would prove my ISP is scanning and reading my traffic information - which is a violation of my privacy rights of internet usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find interesting is the spin on privacy.
Here in Canada, our privacy law is one of the reasons why file sharing has been hard to crack down on.
The ability to remain anonymous and retain your privacy rights blocks most ISP's from packet-sniffing on behalf of 'special interest groups' - it also requires a court order: the judge will ask 'what proof do you have' and then ask these groups to explain how the gathered that proof without violation of Privacy laws.
Even the current 'throttling' may be violating my privacy of internet usage as it would prove my ISP is scanning and reading my traffic information - which is a violation of my privacy rights of internet usage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28292597</id>
	<title>Re:pretty good week for people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244731020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad week if your Slashdot handle is 'cliffski' too.</p><p>Blissfully, that blithering moron's ramblings are more rarely seen with each passing day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad week if your Slashdot handle is 'cliffski ' too.Blissfully , that blithering moron 's ramblings are more rarely seen with each passing day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad week if your Slashdot handle is 'cliffski' too.Blissfully, that blithering moron's ramblings are more rarely seen with each passing day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283095</id>
	<title>Libert&#233;, Egalit&#233;, Fraternit&#233;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244662740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vive la France!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vive la France !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vive la France!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283375</id>
	<title>Re:Good News For Once</title>
	<author>Arthur B.</author>
	<datestamp>1244664000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The other good news is that the court is basing its decision on the fact that a right to communication (speech, really, if you translate into US constitution lingo) includes the right to access the Internet. That's pretty cool potentially!</p></div></blockquote><p>It's more likely to end up as a nasty positive right than as a defense of free speech.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The other good news is that the court is basing its decision on the fact that a right to communication ( speech , really , if you translate into US constitution lingo ) includes the right to access the Internet .
That 's pretty cool potentially ! It 's more likely to end up as a nasty positive right than as a defense of free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other good news is that the court is basing its decision on the fact that a right to communication (speech, really, if you translate into US constitution lingo) includes the right to access the Internet.
That's pretty cool potentially!It's more likely to end up as a nasty positive right than as a defense of free speech.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282699</id>
	<title>So what?  People stay at bat all day??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244661000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The headline just jumped out at me and made me so angry that I didn't RTFS or RTFA.<br>So a pitcher just keeps throwing at the hitter, the hitter keeps swinging and baseball gets even more boring than it already is?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The headline just jumped out at me and made me so angry that I did n't RTFS or RTFA.So a pitcher just keeps throwing at the hitter , the hitter keeps swinging and baseball gets even more boring than it already is ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The headline just jumped out at me and made me so angry that I didn't RTFS or RTFA.So a pitcher just keeps throwing at the hitter, the hitter keeps swinging and baseball gets even more boring than it already is?!?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282961</id>
	<title>Gah, I've been too slow!</title>
	<author>Schmorgluck</author>
	<datestamp>1244662200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah well, I can't say I'm surprised that several people have been faster than myself to submit that story.</p><p>Anyway, since I'd be offtopic if I posted just to say that, here's a link to the reaction of the association "La Quadrature du Net", spearhead of opponents to the law: <a href="http://www.laquadrature.net/fr/hadopi-is-dead-three-strikes-killed-by-highest-court" title="laquadrature.net" rel="nofollow">Hadopi is dead: "three strikes" buried by highest court.</a> [laquadrature.net] They deserve credit for their hard work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah well , I ca n't say I 'm surprised that several people have been faster than myself to submit that story.Anyway , since I 'd be offtopic if I posted just to say that , here 's a link to the reaction of the association " La Quadrature du Net " , spearhead of opponents to the law : Hadopi is dead : " three strikes " buried by highest court .
[ laquadrature.net ] They deserve credit for their hard work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah well, I can't say I'm surprised that several people have been faster than myself to submit that story.Anyway, since I'd be offtopic if I posted just to say that, here's a link to the reaction of the association "La Quadrature du Net", spearhead of opponents to the law: Hadopi is dead: "three strikes" buried by highest court.
[laquadrature.net] They deserve credit for their hard work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282705</id>
	<title>Re:right again</title>
	<author>immakiku</author>
	<datestamp>1244661060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. It's proof they have the weight of the constitution. That's different from ethics. Don't let this delude you into thinking that any and all forms of p2p are ethical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
It 's proof they have the weight of the constitution .
That 's different from ethics .
Do n't let this delude you into thinking that any and all forms of p2p are ethical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
It's proof they have the weight of the constitution.
That's different from ethics.
Don't let this delude you into thinking that any and all forms of p2p are ethical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284897</id>
	<title>Re:No presumption of innocence in France.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244626740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me correct that : in France, we have what is called the "burden of proof". It means basically that the one party with this "burden" has to produce evidence he's right. For example, if I say you're infringing copyright, the burden is mine : I have to produce enought evidence to actually PROVE that :<br>- the copyright is mine to enforce<br>- you are indeed in breach of it</p><p>Until I have proven this, the defendant won't have to produce any evidence of his own to dismiss the case.</p><p>so, in essence "innocent until proven guilty"</p><p>In some (very rare) cases, the "burden of proof" is reversed, and the defendant has to prove h'es not guilty, but these are very rare cases, and specified as such by Law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me correct that : in France , we have what is called the " burden of proof " .
It means basically that the one party with this " burden " has to produce evidence he 's right .
For example , if I say you 're infringing copyright , the burden is mine : I have to produce enought evidence to actually PROVE that : - the copyright is mine to enforce- you are indeed in breach of itUntil I have proven this , the defendant wo n't have to produce any evidence of his own to dismiss the case.so , in essence " innocent until proven guilty " In some ( very rare ) cases , the " burden of proof " is reversed , and the defendant has to prove h'es not guilty , but these are very rare cases , and specified as such by Law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me correct that : in France, we have what is called the "burden of proof".
It means basically that the one party with this "burden" has to produce evidence he's right.
For example, if I say you're infringing copyright, the burden is mine : I have to produce enought evidence to actually PROVE that :- the copyright is mine to enforce- you are indeed in breach of itUntil I have proven this, the defendant won't have to produce any evidence of his own to dismiss the case.so, in essence "innocent until proven guilty"In some (very rare) cases, the "burden of proof" is reversed, and the defendant has to prove h'es not guilty, but these are very rare cases, and specified as such by Law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28289389</id>
	<title>Re:Good News For Once</title>
	<author>techno-vampire</author>
	<datestamp>1244656260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not so.  SCOTUS also hears appeals on criminal cases, such as <i>Miranda,</i> because it's the final court of appeal for any case.  However, unless there are Constitutional issues involved, they don't generally accept the case.  And, AIUI, those Constitutional issues have to be in the first appeal because as you can't add new grounds to your appeal as you move up the court ladder.  IANAL, but that's what I've heard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so .
SCOTUS also hears appeals on criminal cases , such as Miranda , because it 's the final court of appeal for any case .
However , unless there are Constitutional issues involved , they do n't generally accept the case .
And , AIUI , those Constitutional issues have to be in the first appeal because as you ca n't add new grounds to your appeal as you move up the court ladder .
IANAL , but that 's what I 've heard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so.
SCOTUS also hears appeals on criminal cases, such as Miranda, because it's the final court of appeal for any case.
However, unless there are Constitutional issues involved, they don't generally accept the case.
And, AIUI, those Constitutional issues have to be in the first appeal because as you can't add new grounds to your appeal as you move up the court ladder.
IANAL, but that's what I've heard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284031</id>
	<title>Can we now go back to the correct name for fries?</title>
	<author>jbr439</author>
	<datestamp>1244666700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although, in this case "freedom" does indeed apply (without the sarcasm).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although , in this case " freedom " does indeed apply ( without the sarcasm ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although, in this case "freedom" does indeed apply (without the sarcasm).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284191</id>
	<title>Re:Good News For Once</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1244667300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The equivalent of the US Supreme Court would be the European Court for Human Rights. EU still doesn't have a constitution and can't comment the constitutionality of national laws, but they can judge whether a practice (be it a law, an habit or a single case) is contrary to the declaration of rights every EU countries accepted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The equivalent of the US Supreme Court would be the European Court for Human Rights .
EU still does n't have a constitution and ca n't comment the constitutionality of national laws , but they can judge whether a practice ( be it a law , an habit or a single case ) is contrary to the declaration of rights every EU countries accepted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The equivalent of the US Supreme Court would be the European Court for Human Rights.
EU still doesn't have a constitution and can't comment the constitutionality of national laws, but they can judge whether a practice (be it a law, an habit or a single case) is contrary to the declaration of rights every EU countries accepted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284789</id>
	<title>Re:Good News For Once</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1244626380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...[while] the [S]upreme [C]ourt is a judicial body, ruling over a court case.</p><p>The U.S. Supreme Court's function is to interpret the U.S. Constitution, not to hear general court cases.  The appeal of court cases that involve novel interpretations of the Constitution, and that haven't already been adequately addressed by the Court, may be reviewed by the Court at its sole discretion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ... [ while ] the [ S ] upreme [ C ] ourt is a judicial body , ruling over a court case.The U.S. Supreme Court 's function is to interpret the U.S. Constitution , not to hear general court cases .
The appeal of court cases that involve novel interpretations of the Constitution , and that have n't already been adequately addressed by the Court , may be reviewed by the Court at its sole discretion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...[while] the [S]upreme [C]ourt is a judicial body, ruling over a court case.The U.S. Supreme Court's function is to interpret the U.S. Constitution, not to hear general court cases.
The appeal of court cases that involve novel interpretations of the Constitution, and that haven't already been adequately addressed by the Court, may be reviewed by the Court at its sole discretion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283207</id>
	<title>Re:American perspective</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1244663280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference here would be on the lack of adjudication. Any penalties imposed by a law has to have an adjudication where those effected can argue their innocence and contest the claims. There are even lines of thought that civil and punitive penalties outside the actual loss requires a criminal trial to fit with the constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference here would be on the lack of adjudication .
Any penalties imposed by a law has to have an adjudication where those effected can argue their innocence and contest the claims .
There are even lines of thought that civil and punitive penalties outside the actual loss requires a criminal trial to fit with the constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference here would be on the lack of adjudication.
Any penalties imposed by a law has to have an adjudication where those effected can argue their innocence and contest the claims.
There are even lines of thought that civil and punitive penalties outside the actual loss requires a criminal trial to fit with the constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28286939</id>
	<title>French constitution is actually quite okay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244636160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For European standards the French constitution is actually quite okay. It was historically based on the same mingle of ideas that produced the US constitution and it shows. The most prominent part of the French constitution is about protecting a set of ideals, most notably human rights and freedoms, and in that respect several other European constitutions are severely lacking, either because they've grown organically from the interplay of groups of citizens, each trying to protect their own turf at the expense of others, which they considered more worth pushing than general high ideals that everyone would benefit from, or because the writers didn't particularly care for human rights in the first place. The one aspect were the US and France are radically different, when it comes to basic state structure, is that contrary to the US, France uses civil law as basis for government, and I am not convinced that this is a bad thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For European standards the French constitution is actually quite okay .
It was historically based on the same mingle of ideas that produced the US constitution and it shows .
The most prominent part of the French constitution is about protecting a set of ideals , most notably human rights and freedoms , and in that respect several other European constitutions are severely lacking , either because they 've grown organically from the interplay of groups of citizens , each trying to protect their own turf at the expense of others , which they considered more worth pushing than general high ideals that everyone would benefit from , or because the writers did n't particularly care for human rights in the first place .
The one aspect were the US and France are radically different , when it comes to basic state structure , is that contrary to the US , France uses civil law as basis for government , and I am not convinced that this is a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For European standards the French constitution is actually quite okay.
It was historically based on the same mingle of ideas that produced the US constitution and it shows.
The most prominent part of the French constitution is about protecting a set of ideals, most notably human rights and freedoms, and in that respect several other European constitutions are severely lacking, either because they've grown organically from the interplay of groups of citizens, each trying to protect their own turf at the expense of others, which they considered more worth pushing than general high ideals that everyone would benefit from, or because the writers didn't particularly care for human rights in the first place.
The one aspect were the US and France are radically different, when it comes to basic state structure, is that contrary to the US, France uses civil law as basis for government, and I am not convinced that this is a bad thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282639</id>
	<title>pretty good week for people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244660760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>With this and the Pirate Party winning and EU seat, great news.  Bad week if you are trying to force your failing business model to stay relevant like the RIAA (Sony, Warner Bros, Universal, and EMI).</htmltext>
<tokenext>With this and the Pirate Party winning and EU seat , great news .
Bad week if you are trying to force your failing business model to stay relevant like the RIAA ( Sony , Warner Bros , Universal , and EMI ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With this and the Pirate Party winning and EU seat, great news.
Bad week if you are trying to force your failing business model to stay relevant like the RIAA (Sony, Warner Bros, Universal, and EMI).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615</id>
	<title>Good News For Once</title>
	<author>alain94040</author>
	<datestamp>1244660700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The French "Conseil Constitutionnel" is a joke compared to the US Supreme Court, but for once they made the right decision.</p><p>At a minimum, the right to defend yourself and face your accuser was sorely lacking from the "3-strike" legislation. The French legal system already has the equivalent of the US small claims court, so there was no reason for the ISPs to become judges.</p><p>The other good news is that the court is basing its decision on the fact that a right to communication (speech, really, if you translate into US constitution lingo) includes the right to access the Internet. That's pretty cool potentially!</p><p>--<br>pour les developpeurs qui n'habitent pas dans la Silicon Valley: <a href="http://fairsoftware.net/" title="fairsoftware.net">FairSoftware</a> [fairsoftware.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The French " Conseil Constitutionnel " is a joke compared to the US Supreme Court , but for once they made the right decision.At a minimum , the right to defend yourself and face your accuser was sorely lacking from the " 3-strike " legislation .
The French legal system already has the equivalent of the US small claims court , so there was no reason for the ISPs to become judges.The other good news is that the court is basing its decision on the fact that a right to communication ( speech , really , if you translate into US constitution lingo ) includes the right to access the Internet .
That 's pretty cool potentially ! --pour les developpeurs qui n'habitent pas dans la Silicon Valley : FairSoftware [ fairsoftware.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The French "Conseil Constitutionnel" is a joke compared to the US Supreme Court, but for once they made the right decision.At a minimum, the right to defend yourself and face your accuser was sorely lacking from the "3-strike" legislation.
The French legal system already has the equivalent of the US small claims court, so there was no reason for the ISPs to become judges.The other good news is that the court is basing its decision on the fact that a right to communication (speech, really, if you translate into US constitution lingo) includes the right to access the Internet.
That's pretty cool potentially!--pour les developpeurs qui n'habitent pas dans la Silicon Valley: FairSoftware [fairsoftware.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283341</id>
	<title>Stop the Presses!</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1244663940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop the presses! Common sense discovered in France!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop the presses !
Common sense discovered in France !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop the presses!
Common sense discovered in France!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284319</id>
	<title>Re:American perspective</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1244624580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When a 3 strikes law passes here in the US, I wouldn't expect such a good result from our courts.</p></div><p>The difference is that three-strikes laws in the US (at least the ones I've heard about) are about three convictions by a court, not three accusations by a private company. I'm not saying I agree with any three-strikes laws in the US, but at least they do go through the judicial system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a 3 strikes law passes here in the US , I would n't expect such a good result from our courts.The difference is that three-strikes laws in the US ( at least the ones I 've heard about ) are about three convictions by a court , not three accusations by a private company .
I 'm not saying I agree with any three-strikes laws in the US , but at least they do go through the judicial system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a 3 strikes law passes here in the US, I wouldn't expect such a good result from our courts.The difference is that three-strikes laws in the US (at least the ones I've heard about) are about three convictions by a court, not three accusations by a private company.
I'm not saying I agree with any three-strikes laws in the US, but at least they do go through the judicial system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283055</id>
	<title>Re:Court's self interest</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1244662560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that the Conseil Constitutionnel is not a court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the Conseil Constitutionnel is not a court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the Conseil Constitutionnel is not a court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282673</id>
	<title>Sorry</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1244660940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry Big Media Companies (tm), find another (legal) way to protect your dying business model. Or, better yet, adapt to the new reality...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry Big Media Companies ( tm ) , find another ( legal ) way to protect your dying business model .
Or , better yet , adapt to the new reality.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry Big Media Companies (tm), find another (legal) way to protect your dying business model.
Or, better yet, adapt to the new reality...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282921</id>
	<title>Cocaine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244662080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When illegal filesharing is detected, users have to prove their innocence. This is obviously contrary to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence."</p></div><p>The wording is a bit funky. If \_potential\_ illegal filesharing is detected is what it should say. One could not prove their innocence if they are illegally sharing files.</p><p>It should be more akin to a police officer seeing you hand someone a brick of white powder, then the other party handing you a stack of money... I don't think it's unreasonable for the police officer to act on his suspicion and ask if you're selling cocaine.</p><p>(that is, of course, on the premise that it is a police force who "detects illegal filesharing" and not an internet service provider. I know, ISP's are not common carriers and such. A boy can dream, though.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When illegal filesharing is detected , users have to prove their innocence .
This is obviously contrary to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence .
" The wording is a bit funky .
If \ _potential \ _ illegal filesharing is detected is what it should say .
One could not prove their innocence if they are illegally sharing files.It should be more akin to a police officer seeing you hand someone a brick of white powder , then the other party handing you a stack of money... I do n't think it 's unreasonable for the police officer to act on his suspicion and ask if you 're selling cocaine .
( that is , of course , on the premise that it is a police force who " detects illegal filesharing " and not an internet service provider .
I know , ISP 's are not common carriers and such .
A boy can dream , though .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When illegal filesharing is detected, users have to prove their innocence.
This is obviously contrary to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence.
"The wording is a bit funky.
If \_potential\_ illegal filesharing is detected is what it should say.
One could not prove their innocence if they are illegally sharing files.It should be more akin to a police officer seeing you hand someone a brick of white powder, then the other party handing you a stack of money... I don't think it's unreasonable for the police officer to act on his suspicion and ask if you're selling cocaine.
(that is, of course, on the premise that it is a police force who "detects illegal filesharing" and not an internet service provider.
I know, ISP's are not common carriers and such.
A boy can dream, though.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283415</id>
	<title>Re:Good News For Once</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1244664120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An usual, when someone does not mention special cases (eg the encrypted access), the global version (all kinds of access) is assumed.</p><p>Besides, who says that "garbage data" is no "speech", when accessing the Internet is part of the freedom of speech?</p><p>So let me freely say,</p><p>-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----<br>Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)</p><p>(Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.)<br>-----END PGP MESSAGE-----</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An usual , when someone does not mention special cases ( eg the encrypted access ) , the global version ( all kinds of access ) is assumed.Besides , who says that " garbage data " is no " speech " , when accessing the Internet is part of the freedom of speech ? So let me freely say,-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----Version : GnuPG v2.0.11 ( GNU/Linux ) ( Filter error : That 's an awful long string of letters there .
) -----END PGP MESSAGE-----</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An usual, when someone does not mention special cases (eg the encrypted access), the global version (all kinds of access) is assumed.Besides, who says that "garbage data" is no "speech", when accessing the Internet is part of the freedom of speech?So let me freely say,-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)(Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.
)-----END PGP MESSAGE-----</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28285625</id>
	<title>Re:right again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244629860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If A is against B, and A is unethical, this is not evidence that B is ethical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If A is against B , and A is unethical , this is not evidence that B is ethical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If A is against B, and A is unethical, this is not evidence that B is ethical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283119</id>
	<title>No presumption of innocence in France.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244662800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There isn't a presumption of innocence.</p><p>There isn't quite a presumption of guilt either.  As the wiki says:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic\_Code" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic\_Code</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>The possibility for justice to endorse lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries. However, the legal proceedings certainly did not have de jure presumption of guilt; for instance, the juror's oath explicitly recommended that the jury did not betray the interests of the defendants, and took attention of the means of defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is n't a presumption of innocence.There is n't quite a presumption of guilt either .
As the wiki says : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic \ _Code [ wikipedia.org ] The possibility for justice to endorse lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt , particularly in common law countries .
However , the legal proceedings certainly did not have de jure presumption of guilt ; for instance , the juror 's oath explicitly recommended that the jury did not betray the interests of the defendants , and took attention of the means of defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There isn't a presumption of innocence.There isn't quite a presumption of guilt either.
As the wiki says:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic\_Code [wikipedia.org]The possibility for justice to endorse lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries.
However, the legal proceedings certainly did not have de jure presumption of guilt; for instance, the juror's oath explicitly recommended that the jury did not betray the interests of the defendants, and took attention of the means of defense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284247</id>
	<title>Re:right again</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1244667540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet more proof that p2p users have the weight of ethics on their side.</p></div><p>Er, no. This has nothing to do with a person who is illegally downloading music/movies/etc. being ethical in any way, only that such a person should be treated the same way as anyone else accused of a crime, i.e. they are assumed to be innocent until they are found guilty by a court, and only a court can remove their rights upon finding them guilty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet more proof that p2p users have the weight of ethics on their side.Er , no .
This has nothing to do with a person who is illegally downloading music/movies/etc .
being ethical in any way , only that such a person should be treated the same way as anyone else accused of a crime , i.e .
they are assumed to be innocent until they are found guilty by a court , and only a court can remove their rights upon finding them guilty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet more proof that p2p users have the weight of ethics on their side.Er, no.
This has nothing to do with a person who is illegally downloading music/movies/etc.
being ethical in any way, only that such a person should be treated the same way as anyone else accused of a crime, i.e.
they are assumed to be innocent until they are found guilty by a court, and only a court can remove their rights upon finding them guilty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282797</id>
	<title>American perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244661420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When a 3 strikes law passes here in the US, I wouldn't expect such a good result from our courts.  The first problem is that freedom of speech in America doesn't guarantee you access to a forum to be heard.  Second, there is no presumption of innocence in our Constitution.  The closest we get is a right to trial by jury, but that only applies in criminal proceedings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When a 3 strikes law passes here in the US , I would n't expect such a good result from our courts .
The first problem is that freedom of speech in America does n't guarantee you access to a forum to be heard .
Second , there is no presumption of innocence in our Constitution .
The closest we get is a right to trial by jury , but that only applies in criminal proceedings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a 3 strikes law passes here in the US, I wouldn't expect such a good result from our courts.
The first problem is that freedom of speech in America doesn't guarantee you access to a forum to be heard.
Second, there is no presumption of innocence in our Constitution.
The closest we get is a right to trial by jury, but that only applies in criminal proceedings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282869</id>
	<title>Clarification</title>
	<author>brian0918</author>
	<datestamp>1244661900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, don't get me wrong, I agree that the government should not be handling such regulation, however if an ISP decided to enact such a rule as a private policy, I'm all for their right to do that. I would not necessarily be willing to choose that ISP, but no restriction should prevent them from making decisions that cause them to lose customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , do n't get me wrong , I agree that the government should not be handling such regulation , however if an ISP decided to enact such a rule as a private policy , I 'm all for their right to do that .
I would not necessarily be willing to choose that ISP , but no restriction should prevent them from making decisions that cause them to lose customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, don't get me wrong, I agree that the government should not be handling such regulation, however if an ISP decided to enact such a rule as a private policy, I'm all for their right to do that.
I would not necessarily be willing to choose that ISP, but no restriction should prevent them from making decisions that cause them to lose customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283049</id>
	<title>US Congress please pay attention</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1244662560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"They argue that removing Internet access is equivalent to hindering a person's freedom of speech"<br>
I would much appreciate if US Congress took this to heart and forced ISPs to stop the anticompetitive behavior. Sure, if these corporations really want to charge exorbitant amounts for their top-tier services, that's their right as a business. But there is little reason to have such price gouging and consumer-abusive practices and horrible, out of date service. Yes, we have disadvantages like large rural expanses and suburban sprawl, but I would like to finally see some legal teeth put in place to get this country to where it should be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" They argue that removing Internet access is equivalent to hindering a person 's freedom of speech " I would much appreciate if US Congress took this to heart and forced ISPs to stop the anticompetitive behavior .
Sure , if these corporations really want to charge exorbitant amounts for their top-tier services , that 's their right as a business .
But there is little reason to have such price gouging and consumer-abusive practices and horrible , out of date service .
Yes , we have disadvantages like large rural expanses and suburban sprawl , but I would like to finally see some legal teeth put in place to get this country to where it should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They argue that removing Internet access is equivalent to hindering a person's freedom of speech"
I would much appreciate if US Congress took this to heart and forced ISPs to stop the anticompetitive behavior.
Sure, if these corporations really want to charge exorbitant amounts for their top-tier services, that's their right as a business.
But there is little reason to have such price gouging and consumer-abusive practices and horrible, out of date service.
Yes, we have disadvantages like large rural expanses and suburban sprawl, but I would like to finally see some legal teeth put in place to get this country to where it should be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283271</id>
	<title>Re:American perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244663640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"freedom of speech in America doesn't guarantee you access to a forum to be heard"</p><p>Especially not on Slashdot, where censorship is king.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" freedom of speech in America does n't guarantee you access to a forum to be heard " Especially not on Slashdot , where censorship is king .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"freedom of speech in America doesn't guarantee you access to a forum to be heard"Especially not on Slashdot, where censorship is king.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284339</id>
	<title>Re:So what? People stay at bat all day??</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1244624640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just figured the law was rejected because the French don't like an analogy to an American sport.  Instead they will replace the "three strikes and you're out" law with a "one goal on each side and then you have a shootout" law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just figured the law was rejected because the French do n't like an analogy to an American sport .
Instead they will replace the " three strikes and you 're out " law with a " one goal on each side and then you have a shootout " law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just figured the law was rejected because the French don't like an analogy to an American sport.
Instead they will replace the "three strikes and you're out" law with a "one goal on each side and then you have a shootout" law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282747</id>
	<title>whats to stop</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1244661240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i am glad this was overturned, anyway if someone was banned from the internet whats to stop a banned individual from getting a laptop and going online via one of the many open wifi access points (which have to be many)</htmltext>
<tokenext>i am glad this was overturned , anyway if someone was banned from the internet whats to stop a banned individual from getting a laptop and going online via one of the many open wifi access points ( which have to be many )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i am glad this was overturned, anyway if someone was banned from the internet whats to stop a banned individual from getting a laptop and going online via one of the many open wifi access points (which have to be many)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283955</id>
	<title>Presumed innocense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244666460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quote:</p><p>This is obviously contrary to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence.</p><p>Question:</p><p>Does France have such a presumption?</p><p>Not trolling, I really don't know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote : This is obviously contrary to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence.Question : Does France have such a presumption ? Not trolling , I really do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote:This is obviously contrary to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence.Question:Does France have such a presumption?Not trolling, I really don't know.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282723</id>
	<title>Re:Good News For Once</title>
	<author>Le T800</author>
	<datestamp>1244661120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To clarify a bit, the "Conseil Constitutionnel" in France is supposed to check that new laws respect the principles of the French Constitution, which is supposed to respect the principles of the "Men and Citizens's Right Declaration" from 1789.<br>From now Internet in France is recongnized as a fundamental right, associated to the right to communicate freely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To clarify a bit , the " Conseil Constitutionnel " in France is supposed to check that new laws respect the principles of the French Constitution , which is supposed to respect the principles of the " Men and Citizens 's Right Declaration " from 1789.From now Internet in France is recongnized as a fundamental right , associated to the right to communicate freely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To clarify a bit, the "Conseil Constitutionnel" in France is supposed to check that new laws respect the principles of the French Constitution, which is supposed to respect the principles of the "Men and Citizens's Right Declaration" from 1789.From now Internet in France is recongnized as a fundamental right, associated to the right to communicate freely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28289211</id>
	<title>Re:Good News For Once</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244654340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please don't put fake sigs advertising your website in the comment field in a self-serving attempt to fool search engines.  (preferences...general...user info...sig is where you put your sig)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't put fake sigs advertising your website in the comment field in a self-serving attempt to fool search engines .
( preferences...general...user info...sig is where you put your sig )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't put fake sigs advertising your website in the comment field in a self-serving attempt to fool search engines.
(preferences...general...user info...sig is where you put your sig)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282683</id>
	<title>q:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244660940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what about the three strokes law?  No matter how hard I try, I can't jackoff more than three times a day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what about the three strokes law ?
No matter how hard I try , I ca n't jackoff more than three times a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what about the three strokes law?
No matter how hard I try, I can't jackoff more than three times a day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28287123</id>
	<title>Re:Good News For Once</title>
	<author>mog007</author>
	<datestamp>1244637240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>United States law is derived from British Common Law.  France, like most of continental Europe, has a Civil Law approach.  Comparing the French system to the American system is, definitely equivalent to comparing apples to oranges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>United States law is derived from British Common Law .
France , like most of continental Europe , has a Civil Law approach .
Comparing the French system to the American system is , definitely equivalent to comparing apples to oranges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>United States law is derived from British Common Law.
France, like most of continental Europe, has a Civil Law approach.
Comparing the French system to the American system is, definitely equivalent to comparing apples to oranges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28285469</id>
	<title>Re:American perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244629200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The closest we get is a right to trial by jury, but that only applies in criminal proceedings.</i></p><p>Presumption of innocence is inherent in the burden of proof, which even for a civil trial is still the preponderance of evidence.  If the prosecution/plaintiff can't present any evidence that you are guilty/at fault then there's no reason for you to present evidence that you are innocent, because that is in fact the assumption barring evidence to the contrary.</p><p>So yeah.  Presumption of innocence is indeed part of our system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The closest we get is a right to trial by jury , but that only applies in criminal proceedings.Presumption of innocence is inherent in the burden of proof , which even for a civil trial is still the preponderance of evidence .
If the prosecution/plaintiff ca n't present any evidence that you are guilty/at fault then there 's no reason for you to present evidence that you are innocent , because that is in fact the assumption barring evidence to the contrary.So yeah .
Presumption of innocence is indeed part of our system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The closest we get is a right to trial by jury, but that only applies in criminal proceedings.Presumption of innocence is inherent in the burden of proof, which even for a civil trial is still the preponderance of evidence.
If the prosecution/plaintiff can't present any evidence that you are guilty/at fault then there's no reason for you to present evidence that you are innocent, because that is in fact the assumption barring evidence to the contrary.So yeah.
Presumption of innocence is indeed part of our system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283977</id>
	<title>Giant spam machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244666520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a great line from one of the commenters cited in an article in <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2009/06/10/les-partisans-d-hadopi-ne-desarment-pas\_1205324\_651865.html" title="lemonde.fr" rel="nofollow">Le Monde</a> [lemonde.fr]. Since the Conseil Constitutionnel invalidated the penalties envisaged in the law, but said it was OK to send warnings to illegal downloaders, "the only thing that's left is a giant spam machine for the entertainment industry, paid for by taxpayers."</p><p><i>"Il ne reste qu'une immense machine &agrave; spams pour les industries du divertissement et pay&eacute;e par le contribuable"</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a great line from one of the commenters cited in an article in Le Monde [ lemonde.fr ] .
Since the Conseil Constitutionnel invalidated the penalties envisaged in the law , but said it was OK to send warnings to illegal downloaders , " the only thing that 's left is a giant spam machine for the entertainment industry , paid for by taxpayers .
" " Il ne reste qu'une immense machine   spams pour les industries du divertissement et pay   e par le contribuable "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a great line from one of the commenters cited in an article in Le Monde [lemonde.fr].
Since the Conseil Constitutionnel invalidated the penalties envisaged in the law, but said it was OK to send warnings to illegal downloaders, "the only thing that's left is a giant spam machine for the entertainment industry, paid for by taxpayers.
""Il ne reste qu'une immense machine à spams pour les industries du divertissement et payée par le contribuable"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282709</id>
	<title>Re:Good News For Once</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244661060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lets hope that (the world) takes this further and embraces the right to <b>encrypted</b> speech as well as free speech.</p><p>you know what I'm referring to.  those that listen in, just because they're too bored or unable to find the real 'bad guys'.</p><p>if internet access is a 'right' then the ability to communicate without some 3rd party listening in should also be a right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lets hope that ( the world ) takes this further and embraces the right to encrypted speech as well as free speech.you know what I 'm referring to .
those that listen in , just because they 're too bored or unable to find the real 'bad guys'.if internet access is a 'right ' then the ability to communicate without some 3rd party listening in should also be a right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lets hope that (the world) takes this further and embraces the right to encrypted speech as well as free speech.you know what I'm referring to.
those that listen in, just because they're too bored or unable to find the real 'bad guys'.if internet access is a 'right' then the ability to communicate without some 3rd party listening in should also be a right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28288067</id>
	<title>Re:Libert&#233;, Egalit&#233;, Fraternit&#233;</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1244644080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Libert&#233;, Egalit&#233;, Fraternit&#233;</p></div><p>Internetit&#233;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Libert   , Egalit   , Fraternit   Internetit  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Liberté, Egalité, FraternitéInternetité
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283463</id>
	<title>Re:Good News For Once</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244664360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's actually the PRIMARY function for SCOTUS as well, the only difference being that the US Supreme Court only rules on laws for which the Federal Government is sued by a group of or a single US Citizen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's actually the PRIMARY function for SCOTUS as well , the only difference being that the US Supreme Court only rules on laws for which the Federal Government is sued by a group of or a single US Citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's actually the PRIMARY function for SCOTUS as well, the only difference being that the US Supreme Court only rules on laws for which the Federal Government is sued by a group of or a single US Citizen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284553</id>
	<title>Re:Good News For Once</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244625420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The free speech bit is because the internet is a MEDIA of exchange of that speech.  Not that Internet access is a right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The free speech bit is because the internet is a MEDIA of exchange of that speech .
Not that Internet access is a right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The free speech bit is because the internet is a MEDIA of exchange of that speech.
Not that Internet access is a right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28292597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28289539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28285625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28289389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28288067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28289211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28286939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28285469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1732211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28287123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1732211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1732211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28289539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1732211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28286939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283463
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28289389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28287123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28289211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1732211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1732211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28285625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1732211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28285469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1732211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28284897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1732211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1732211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1732211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28282639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28292597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1732211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28283095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1732211.28288067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
