<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_14_1453202</id>
	<title>RIAA Case, Capitol vs. Thomas #2, Starts Monday</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244994780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">NewYorkCountryLawyer</a> writes <i>"The RIAA's first trial verdict having been tossed out last year, the RIAA is <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Minn-woman-who-lost-apf-15518185.html">coming back for a second round starting Monday</a>. This time the trial will be in Minneapolis, rather than Duluth, and the defendant will have a team of pro bono lawyers on her side. But perhaps the most important new development is that this time, the 'technical' evidence garnered by MediaSentry and 'explained' by the RIAA's expert witness Doug Jacobson, will not get the free pass it got the first time around. In the 2007 trial in <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=Virgin\_v\_Thomas">Capitol Records v. Thomas</a>, no objection was made by defendant's lawyer to the MediaSentry/Doug Jacobson 'evidence' upon which the RIAA relied, and the evidence was admitted without objection. This time there will be no free ride, as defendant's tech-savvy lawyers <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#8091934582760229607">have already filed a list of objections to the RIAA's proposed exhibits</a>. Most notably, they attack the 'technical' materials submitted by MediaSentry and Dr. Doug Jacobson under <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule702">Rule 702</a> of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which requires evidence based on 'scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge' to be based on sufficient facts or data, to be the product of reliable principles and methods, and to be the result of those principles and methods having been applied reliably to the facts of the case. If the evidence fails to meet those standards, it is inadmissible. This judge has already shown acute awareness of these principles in <a href="//news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/11/2226203&amp;tid=123">deciding which subjects the defendant's expert could and could not address</a>. This should be interesting."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " The RIAA 's first trial verdict having been tossed out last year , the RIAA is coming back for a second round starting Monday .
This time the trial will be in Minneapolis , rather than Duluth , and the defendant will have a team of pro bono lawyers on her side .
But perhaps the most important new development is that this time , the 'technical ' evidence garnered by MediaSentry and 'explained ' by the RIAA 's expert witness Doug Jacobson , will not get the free pass it got the first time around .
In the 2007 trial in Capitol Records v. Thomas , no objection was made by defendant 's lawyer to the MediaSentry/Doug Jacobson 'evidence ' upon which the RIAA relied , and the evidence was admitted without objection .
This time there will be no free ride , as defendant 's tech-savvy lawyers have already filed a list of objections to the RIAA 's proposed exhibits .
Most notably , they attack the 'technical ' materials submitted by MediaSentry and Dr. Doug Jacobson under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence , which requires evidence based on 'scientific , technical , or other specialized knowledge ' to be based on sufficient facts or data , to be the product of reliable principles and methods , and to be the result of those principles and methods having been applied reliably to the facts of the case .
If the evidence fails to meet those standards , it is inadmissible .
This judge has already shown acute awareness of these principles in deciding which subjects the defendant 's expert could and could not address .
This should be interesting .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's first trial verdict having been tossed out last year, the RIAA is coming back for a second round starting Monday.
This time the trial will be in Minneapolis, rather than Duluth, and the defendant will have a team of pro bono lawyers on her side.
But perhaps the most important new development is that this time, the 'technical' evidence garnered by MediaSentry and 'explained' by the RIAA's expert witness Doug Jacobson, will not get the free pass it got the first time around.
In the 2007 trial in Capitol Records v. Thomas, no objection was made by defendant's lawyer to the MediaSentry/Doug Jacobson 'evidence' upon which the RIAA relied, and the evidence was admitted without objection.
This time there will be no free ride, as defendant's tech-savvy lawyers have already filed a list of objections to the RIAA's proposed exhibits.
Most notably, they attack the 'technical' materials submitted by MediaSentry and Dr. Doug Jacobson under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which requires evidence based on 'scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge' to be based on sufficient facts or data, to be the product of reliable principles and methods, and to be the result of those principles and methods having been applied reliably to the facts of the case.
If the evidence fails to meet those standards, it is inadmissible.
This judge has already shown acute awareness of these principles in deciding which subjects the defendant's expert could and could not address.
This should be interesting.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28330435</id>
	<title>Re:Damages case only.</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1244986140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The RIAA knows that it would be very stupid to lose a case of symbolic<br>value. They obviously perceive that their case is strong. After all, they won<br>the case the first time.</i></p><p>The only way the RIAA ever accomplish anything is by intimidating people.<br>They don't have the technical means to stop piracy, and they know it, but they<br><i>can</i> massively reduce it by scaring people sufficiently that the<br>majority no longer pirate.</p><p>eMule is a good example.  While it hasn't died completely, it is a pale shadow<br>of its' former self.  Technically, the RIAA weren't able to sink the entire<br>network, but by making a very public bust of the biggest node, Razorback, and<br>flooding the rest of the network with malware, they've succeeded in deterring<br>probably more than 90\% of its' previous population from using it.</p><p>They don't need to win every case they try and prosecute, or even most of<br>them.  All they need to do is create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty<br>within the Internet using population, and to some extent, they've already done<br>that now.  The thinking goes that, while they might not get a conviction in<br>every case, and while they might not find every single person who pirates,<br>they <i>might</i> find you, and your case <i>might</i> be one where the judge<br>rules in their favour, and you're forced to pay them a lot more than you can<br>afford.</p><p>They don't need concrete legal victories every time.  All they need is fear<br>and paranoia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA knows that it would be very stupid to lose a case of symbolicvalue .
They obviously perceive that their case is strong .
After all , they wonthe case the first time.The only way the RIAA ever accomplish anything is by intimidating people.They do n't have the technical means to stop piracy , and they know it , but theycan massively reduce it by scaring people sufficiently that themajority no longer pirate.eMule is a good example .
While it has n't died completely , it is a pale shadowof its ' former self .
Technically , the RIAA were n't able to sink the entirenetwork , but by making a very public bust of the biggest node , Razorback , andflooding the rest of the network with malware , they 've succeeded in deterringprobably more than 90 \ % of its ' previous population from using it.They do n't need to win every case they try and prosecute , or even most ofthem .
All they need to do is create an atmosphere of fear and uncertaintywithin the Internet using population , and to some extent , they 've already donethat now .
The thinking goes that , while they might not get a conviction inevery case , and while they might not find every single person who pirates,they might find you , and your case might be one where the judgerules in their favour , and you 're forced to pay them a lot more than you canafford.They do n't need concrete legal victories every time .
All they need is fearand paranoia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA knows that it would be very stupid to lose a case of symbolicvalue.
They obviously perceive that their case is strong.
After all, they wonthe case the first time.The only way the RIAA ever accomplish anything is by intimidating people.They don't have the technical means to stop piracy, and they know it, but theycan massively reduce it by scaring people sufficiently that themajority no longer pirate.eMule is a good example.
While it hasn't died completely, it is a pale shadowof its' former self.
Technically, the RIAA weren't able to sink the entirenetwork, but by making a very public bust of the biggest node, Razorback, andflooding the rest of the network with malware, they've succeeded in deterringprobably more than 90\% of its' previous population from using it.They don't need to win every case they try and prosecute, or even most ofthem.
All they need to do is create an atmosphere of fear and uncertaintywithin the Internet using population, and to some extent, they've already donethat now.
The thinking goes that, while they might not get a conviction inevery case, and while they might not find every single person who pirates,they might find you, and your case might be one where the judgerules in their favour, and you're forced to pay them a lot more than you canafford.They don't need concrete legal victories every time.
All they need is fearand paranoia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327303</id>
	<title>Intimidation is what these show trials are really</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ken</author>
	<datestamp>1245002340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>about. While nearly everyone wishes the defedent well we're also secretly thinking "I'm sure glad this isn't me in the dock" as well. So  just by having the trial (win or lose) the RIAA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/MPAA and their ilk keep their scare factor alive and paranoid in the public mind. And that was their intention in the first place too, eh? FUD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>about .
While nearly everyone wishes the defedent well we 're also secretly thinking " I 'm sure glad this is n't me in the dock " as well .
So just by having the trial ( win or lose ) the RIAA /MPAA and their ilk keep their scare factor alive and paranoid in the public mind .
And that was their intention in the first place too , eh ?
FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about.
While nearly everyone wishes the defedent well we're also secretly thinking "I'm sure glad this isn't me in the dock" as well.
So  just by having the trial (win or lose) the RIAA /MPAA and their ilk keep their scare factor alive and paranoid in the public mind.
And that was their intention in the first place too, eh?
FUD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28331459</id>
	<title>Re:Damages case only.</title>
	<author>Crazyswedishguy</author>
	<datestamp>1244996460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This case, therefore, only has symbolic value to the RIAA.</p></div><p>I assume that by "<i>symbolic</i>" you mean that it creates a precedent (if there isn't one already) to add to the existing case law. IANAL (but soon to be law student), but I think an RIAA victory in this court, even if appealed, will make things harder for the defendant and anyone else in the same situation currently or in the future (until overruled).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This case , therefore , only has symbolic value to the RIAA.I assume that by " symbolic " you mean that it creates a precedent ( if there is n't one already ) to add to the existing case law .
IANAL ( but soon to be law student ) , but I think an RIAA victory in this court , even if appealed , will make things harder for the defendant and anyone else in the same situation currently or in the future ( until overruled ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case, therefore, only has symbolic value to the RIAA.I assume that by "symbolic" you mean that it creates a precedent (if there isn't one already) to add to the existing case law.
IANAL (but soon to be law student), but I think an RIAA victory in this court, even if appealed, will make things harder for the defendant and anyone else in the same situation currently or in the future (until overruled).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327803</id>
	<title>Re:Lawyers and geeks</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1245007440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would have thought they do? How often do you hear a case getting tossed out on technicalities?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have thought they do ?
How often do you hear a case getting tossed out on technicalities ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have thought they do?
How often do you hear a case getting tossed out on technicalities?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327457</id>
	<title>Re:Lawyers and geeks</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1245004020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But, when lawyers can't be tech savvy, why can't they hire tech people to explain to them where the (technical) holes in suits lie?</i> </p><p>The civil jury simply weighs the probabilites.</p><p>It is never enough to argue that <b>anything</b> is possible.</p><p>The geek has to persuade the jury that his explanation is more beliveable than the plaintiff's.</p><p>The geek thinks of himself as the smartest guy in the room - and, man, does it show!</p><p>He is two strikes down before he even comes to bat.</p><p>The geek constructs overly-complex and increasingly fanciful scenarios that display a certain  perverted ingenuity -</p><p>but come across as sun-baked bullshit in court.</p><p>Trials are always about people. Square pegs in round holes. The jury will belive your defense <b>only</b> if it consistent with who and what you are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , when lawyers ca n't be tech savvy , why ca n't they hire tech people to explain to them where the ( technical ) holes in suits lie ?
The civil jury simply weighs the probabilites.It is never enough to argue that anything is possible.The geek has to persuade the jury that his explanation is more beliveable than the plaintiff 's.The geek thinks of himself as the smartest guy in the room - and , man , does it show ! He is two strikes down before he even comes to bat.The geek constructs overly-complex and increasingly fanciful scenarios that display a certain perverted ingenuity -but come across as sun-baked bullshit in court.Trials are always about people .
Square pegs in round holes .
The jury will belive your defense only if it consistent with who and what you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, when lawyers can't be tech savvy, why can't they hire tech people to explain to them where the (technical) holes in suits lie?
The civil jury simply weighs the probabilites.It is never enough to argue that anything is possible.The geek has to persuade the jury that his explanation is more beliveable than the plaintiff's.The geek thinks of himself as the smartest guy in the room - and, man, does it show!He is two strikes down before he even comes to bat.The geek constructs overly-complex and increasingly fanciful scenarios that display a certain  perverted ingenuity -but come across as sun-baked bullshit in court.Trials are always about people.
Square pegs in round holes.
The jury will belive your defense only if it consistent with who and what you are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28353525</id>
	<title>I was wrong</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1245146280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was wrong to think that the RIAA's technical witnesses, MediaSentry and Doug Jacobson, were not going to get a "free pass" or "free ride" this time around. They were subjected to no Daubert examination or challenges. I am bitterly disappointed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wrong to think that the RIAA 's technical witnesses , MediaSentry and Doug Jacobson , were not going to get a " free pass " or " free ride " this time around .
They were subjected to no Daubert examination or challenges .
I am bitterly disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wrong to think that the RIAA's technical witnesses, MediaSentry and Doug Jacobson, were not going to get a "free pass" or "free ride" this time around.
They were subjected to no Daubert examination or challenges.
I am bitterly disappointed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327237</id>
	<title>Re:So when do they call Dick?</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1245001800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MosesJones - I was looking at your quote, and deciding it was interesting. However, I wonder, "What does Ghandi feel should be in place of eye for an eye?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MosesJones - I was looking at your quote , and deciding it was interesting .
However , I wonder , " What does Ghandi feel should be in place of eye for an eye ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MosesJones - I was looking at your quote, and deciding it was interesting.
However, I wonder, "What does Ghandi feel should be in place of eye for an eye?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328631</id>
	<title>Re:I hope so, but...</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1244970000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This case seems like the exact type of case the RIAA avoids like the plague.</i> </p><p>Why should they?</p><p>They won the first round.</p><p>The defendant came gift-wrapped to the stand for cross-examination.</p><p>If you were the plaintiff's attorney, every word, every gesture  - coined pure gold.</p><p>The plaintiff only needs only enough evidence to come in for the jury to belive their side of the story.</p><p>The plaintiff has a much simpler story to tell - and simpler usually wins.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This case seems like the exact type of case the RIAA avoids like the plague .
Why should they ? They won the first round.The defendant came gift-wrapped to the stand for cross-examination.If you were the plaintiff 's attorney , every word , every gesture - coined pure gold.The plaintiff only needs only enough evidence to come in for the jury to belive their side of the story.The plaintiff has a much simpler story to tell - and simpler usually wins .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case seems like the exact type of case the RIAA avoids like the plague.
Why should they?They won the first round.The defendant came gift-wrapped to the stand for cross-examination.If you were the plaintiff's attorney, every word, every gesture  - coined pure gold.The plaintiff only needs only enough evidence to come in for the jury to belive their side of the story.The plaintiff has a much simpler story to tell - and simpler usually wins.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328261</id>
	<title>Re:Damages case only.</title>
	<author>vivaelamor</author>
	<datestamp>1245010620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must have missed the whole <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-trial-the-verdict-090417/" title="torrentfreak.com">Pirate Bay trial</a> [torrentfreak.com] in Sweden where the record industry guys completely failed to do basic homework on the relevant technology by submitting <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-trial-day-7-screenshots-for-evidence-090224/" title="torrentfreak.com">flawed screen shots</a> [torrentfreak.com] as evidence. Yes, they won the trial but seemingly on the say so of an allegedly <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-lawyer-is-biased-calls-for-a-retrial-090423/" title="torrentfreak.com">biased judge</a> [torrentfreak.com] rather than on the merits of the case they put before the court.</p><p>So, if the plaintiffs can't manage to submit evidence of an actual infringement to a trial which was covered by media across the world, what makes you think their counterparts in this case would do better? If anyone is in danger of pissing off a judge due to frivolous bullshit my money would be on the RIAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must have missed the whole Pirate Bay trial [ torrentfreak.com ] in Sweden where the record industry guys completely failed to do basic homework on the relevant technology by submitting flawed screen shots [ torrentfreak.com ] as evidence .
Yes , they won the trial but seemingly on the say so of an allegedly biased judge [ torrentfreak.com ] rather than on the merits of the case they put before the court.So , if the plaintiffs ca n't manage to submit evidence of an actual infringement to a trial which was covered by media across the world , what makes you think their counterparts in this case would do better ?
If anyone is in danger of pissing off a judge due to frivolous bullshit my money would be on the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must have missed the whole Pirate Bay trial [torrentfreak.com] in Sweden where the record industry guys completely failed to do basic homework on the relevant technology by submitting flawed screen shots [torrentfreak.com] as evidence.
Yes, they won the trial but seemingly on the say so of an allegedly biased judge [torrentfreak.com] rather than on the merits of the case they put before the court.So, if the plaintiffs can't manage to submit evidence of an actual infringement to a trial which was covered by media across the world, what makes you think their counterparts in this case would do better?
If anyone is in danger of pissing off a judge due to frivolous bullshit my money would be on the RIAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326873</id>
	<title>I hope so, but...</title>
	<author>Weaselmancer</author>
	<datestamp>1244998800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>This should be interesting.</i>

</p><p>This case seems like the exact type of case the RIAA avoids like the plague.  Any time any of their methods are subjected to any serious scrutiny, they drop the case and run.  They know any serious discovery will kill their racket.

</p><p>So what's to keep them from dropping this like a radioactive potato when the bevy of tech savvy pro bono lawyers start to tear Mediasentry a new one?  It would be nice if the case went on long enough for this Rule 702 thing to kill Mediasentry gathered evidence - which could hopefully be used as a precedent for other cases or requests for retrial.  But at this point I'm not counting on the RIAA staying with this one long enough for even that much good to come from it.

</p><p>Hopefully I'm missing something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should be interesting .
This case seems like the exact type of case the RIAA avoids like the plague .
Any time any of their methods are subjected to any serious scrutiny , they drop the case and run .
They know any serious discovery will kill their racket .
So what 's to keep them from dropping this like a radioactive potato when the bevy of tech savvy pro bono lawyers start to tear Mediasentry a new one ?
It would be nice if the case went on long enough for this Rule 702 thing to kill Mediasentry gathered evidence - which could hopefully be used as a precedent for other cases or requests for retrial .
But at this point I 'm not counting on the RIAA staying with this one long enough for even that much good to come from it .
Hopefully I 'm missing something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This should be interesting.
This case seems like the exact type of case the RIAA avoids like the plague.
Any time any of their methods are subjected to any serious scrutiny, they drop the case and run.
They know any serious discovery will kill their racket.
So what's to keep them from dropping this like a radioactive potato when the bevy of tech savvy pro bono lawyers start to tear Mediasentry a new one?
It would be nice if the case went on long enough for this Rule 702 thing to kill Mediasentry gathered evidence - which could hopefully be used as a precedent for other cases or requests for retrial.
But at this point I'm not counting on the RIAA staying with this one long enough for even that much good to come from it.
Hopefully I'm missing something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28333415</id>
	<title>Re:Lawyers and geeks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245066660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will someone please discuss/make available to these "tech-savvy" lawyers the fact that what is being downloaded/shared (ie: what is at stake in this court proceeding) is, in fact, NOT BEING SOLD BY THE RIAAs companies... These are MP3 files NOT CDs - do the check sum on either one. Guess what? They DO NOT COMPARE! It's as though I took a digital picture of the Mona Lisa - then being sued for stealing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will someone please discuss/make available to these " tech-savvy " lawyers the fact that what is being downloaded/shared ( ie : what is at stake in this court proceeding ) is , in fact , NOT BEING SOLD BY THE RIAAs companies... These are MP3 files NOT CDs - do the check sum on either one .
Guess what ?
They DO NOT COMPARE !
It 's as though I took a digital picture of the Mona Lisa - then being sued for stealing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will someone please discuss/make available to these "tech-savvy" lawyers the fact that what is being downloaded/shared (ie: what is at stake in this court proceeding) is, in fact, NOT BEING SOLD BY THE RIAAs companies... These are MP3 files NOT CDs - do the check sum on either one.
Guess what?
They DO NOT COMPARE!
It's as though I took a digital picture of the Mona Lisa - then being sued for stealing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28332037</id>
	<title>Re:Lawyers and geeks</title>
	<author>Dutch Gun</author>
	<datestamp>1245002940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find more often than not that lawyers, especially older male lawyers, believe they are of superior intelligence and if someone needs to explain something to them, it is somehow insulting or demeaning. Perhaps this is not limited to lawyers, but I have to say, all of the male lawyers I have known seem to reflect this pattern of not being open to new information.</p></div><p>Generalization is *always* a bad thing.  Being an older gentleman of considerable life experience, I think you should trust my judgment on this.  And no, don't try telling me otherwise - you're just being contrary!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find more often than not that lawyers , especially older male lawyers , believe they are of superior intelligence and if someone needs to explain something to them , it is somehow insulting or demeaning .
Perhaps this is not limited to lawyers , but I have to say , all of the male lawyers I have known seem to reflect this pattern of not being open to new information.Generalization is * always * a bad thing .
Being an older gentleman of considerable life experience , I think you should trust my judgment on this .
And no , do n't try telling me otherwise - you 're just being contrary !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find more often than not that lawyers, especially older male lawyers, believe they are of superior intelligence and if someone needs to explain something to them, it is somehow insulting or demeaning.
Perhaps this is not limited to lawyers, but I have to say, all of the male lawyers I have known seem to reflect this pattern of not being open to new information.Generalization is *always* a bad thing.
Being an older gentleman of considerable life experience, I think you should trust my judgment on this.
And no, don't try telling me otherwise - you're just being contrary!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327545</id>
	<title>Re:evidence was accepted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245004800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My understanding is that, while the judge didn't discard said evidence out of hand, he <i>is</i> requiring an evidentiary standard that is much higher than the usual blind acceptance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that , while the judge did n't discard said evidence out of hand , he is requiring an evidentiary standard that is much higher than the usual blind acceptance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that, while the judge didn't discard said evidence out of hand, he is requiring an evidentiary standard that is much higher than the usual blind acceptance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326891</id>
	<title>Too bad it won't be streamed...</title>
	<author>Mathinker</author>
	<datestamp>1244998980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After following more and more of these cases, I regret that I haven't been able to actually see what goes on in the courtroom. (That's my curiosity talking. I also have a feeling that after seeing the first one, I won't be so regretful if I don't see a second one.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) )</p><p>Any chance that at least a transcript or audio recording will become available, eventually?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After following more and more of these cases , I regret that I have n't been able to actually see what goes on in the courtroom .
( That 's my curiosity talking .
I also have a feeling that after seeing the first one , I wo n't be so regretful if I do n't see a second one .
: - ) ) Any chance that at least a transcript or audio recording will become available , eventually ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After following more and more of these cases, I regret that I haven't been able to actually see what goes on in the courtroom.
(That's my curiosity talking.
I also have a feeling that after seeing the first one, I won't be so regretful if I don't see a second one.
:-) )Any chance that at least a transcript or audio recording will become available, eventually?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28330977</id>
	<title>Is this horse dead yet?</title>
	<author>RsJtSu</author>
	<datestamp>1244991420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was just curious since we've been beating the poor mare now for years and still nothing significant has arose from the situation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just curious since we 've been beating the poor mare now for years and still nothing significant has arose from the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just curious since we've been beating the poor mare now for years and still nothing significant has arose from the situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326983</id>
	<title>So when do they call Dick?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244999640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem they have here is that as with last time when they lost, its basically a Dick Cheney move.  They might be stomping all over people's rights, it might have no real justification and the method via which they obtain evidence are horrifically flawed, but they "believe" that this is protecting artist's rights and so the ends justifies the means.</p><p>The RIAA is just playing a series of Dick moves in the hope that if they create enough fear then people will accept it.  The problem is that while Dick had some real terrorists to scare people about (and made up others) the RIAA are trying to turn Soccer Mom's into terrorists and it just doesn't work.</p><p>Surely their only hope is to get Dick "madder than a sack full of badgers" Cheney to claim its a national security issue and that Obama is just supporting terrorists by allowing this.  This will pull in Fox News and suddenly the RIAA might have a chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem they have here is that as with last time when they lost , its basically a Dick Cheney move .
They might be stomping all over people 's rights , it might have no real justification and the method via which they obtain evidence are horrifically flawed , but they " believe " that this is protecting artist 's rights and so the ends justifies the means.The RIAA is just playing a series of Dick moves in the hope that if they create enough fear then people will accept it .
The problem is that while Dick had some real terrorists to scare people about ( and made up others ) the RIAA are trying to turn Soccer Mom 's into terrorists and it just does n't work.Surely their only hope is to get Dick " madder than a sack full of badgers " Cheney to claim its a national security issue and that Obama is just supporting terrorists by allowing this .
This will pull in Fox News and suddenly the RIAA might have a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem they have here is that as with last time when they lost, its basically a Dick Cheney move.
They might be stomping all over people's rights, it might have no real justification and the method via which they obtain evidence are horrifically flawed, but they "believe" that this is protecting artist's rights and so the ends justifies the means.The RIAA is just playing a series of Dick moves in the hope that if they create enough fear then people will accept it.
The problem is that while Dick had some real terrorists to scare people about (and made up others) the RIAA are trying to turn Soccer Mom's into terrorists and it just doesn't work.Surely their only hope is to get Dick "madder than a sack full of badgers" Cheney to claim its a national security issue and that Obama is just supporting terrorists by allowing this.
This will pull in Fox News and suddenly the RIAA might have a chance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328301</id>
	<title>It's my impression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245011040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>..that this case is not a matter of whether Jammie Thomas is guilty or innocent (because I quite frankly have a negative opinion on this), but what legal standards should determine guilt or innocence, and I certainly feel the current standards fall short of high quality.

I feel it's a little like Miranda, who was a thoroughly disreputable guy, but who got off in the wider interests of setting up future evidence and policing standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..that this case is not a matter of whether Jammie Thomas is guilty or innocent ( because I quite frankly have a negative opinion on this ) , but what legal standards should determine guilt or innocence , and I certainly feel the current standards fall short of high quality .
I feel it 's a little like Miranda , who was a thoroughly disreputable guy , but who got off in the wider interests of setting up future evidence and policing standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..that this case is not a matter of whether Jammie Thomas is guilty or innocent (because I quite frankly have a negative opinion on this), but what legal standards should determine guilt or innocence, and I certainly feel the current standards fall short of high quality.
I feel it's a little like Miranda, who was a thoroughly disreputable guy, but who got off in the wider interests of setting up future evidence and policing standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28332837</id>
	<title>Re:It's my impression</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1245056940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its a pity that slashdot cares more about the innocence of a single woman who clearly did download music in breach of copyright, and was facing a fine, than it cares about, oh I dunno, people who were rounded up in pakistan and thrown in guantanomo bay for five years with absolutely no evidence and no chance of due process, a fair trial or even knowing why they are there.</p><p>I guess getting free music is more important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a pity that slashdot cares more about the innocence of a single woman who clearly did download music in breach of copyright , and was facing a fine , than it cares about , oh I dunno , people who were rounded up in pakistan and thrown in guantanomo bay for five years with absolutely no evidence and no chance of due process , a fair trial or even knowing why they are there.I guess getting free music is more important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a pity that slashdot cares more about the innocence of a single woman who clearly did download music in breach of copyright, and was facing a fine, than it cares about, oh I dunno, people who were rounded up in pakistan and thrown in guantanomo bay for five years with absolutely no evidence and no chance of due process, a fair trial or even knowing why they are there.I guess getting free music is more important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28329295</id>
	<title>Re:admissability of evidence a sideshow?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1244974380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[citation needed]</p><p>I do hope your case is true though, I just have a hard time having faith in the odds of people beating the man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ] I do hope your case is true though , I just have a hard time having faith in the odds of people beating the man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]I do hope your case is true though, I just have a hard time having faith in the odds of people beating the man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327369</id>
	<title>evidence was accepted</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1245003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ars posted a story days ago with better information than what the summary contains.  The judge has already allowed the MediaSentry evidence and isn't buying most of the defense's excuses.  I like NYCL a lot, but I am surprised he wasn't aware of that.

<p>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-judge-bars-fair-use-defense-oks-mediasentry-evidence.ars</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ars posted a story days ago with better information than what the summary contains .
The judge has already allowed the MediaSentry evidence and is n't buying most of the defense 's excuses .
I like NYCL a lot , but I am surprised he was n't aware of that .
http : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-judge-bars-fair-use-defense-oks-mediasentry-evidence.ars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ars posted a story days ago with better information than what the summary contains.
The judge has already allowed the MediaSentry evidence and isn't buying most of the defense's excuses.
I like NYCL a lot, but I am surprised he wasn't aware of that.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-judge-bars-fair-use-defense-oks-mediasentry-evidence.ars</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327709</id>
	<title>Damages case only.</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1245006540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The defendant has got zip for assets.  The RIAA won't collect anything.  This case, therefore, only has symbolic value to the RIAA.  The RIAA knows that it would be very stupid to lose a case of symbolic value.  They obviously perceive that their case is strong.  After all, they won the case the first time.</p><p>The defendant's lawyer probably hasn't devised a super-duper strategy in the mere three weeks that he has had the case.  He has the same basic cards that his predecessor had.  He's just going to put on a big show--maybe hoping to capitalize on a screw-up by the RIAA.  A major screw-up is unlikely, because the plaintiff's law firm MU$T win this high profile case.  I'll be curious to see if he pisses the trial judge off by wasting a lot of time on frivolous bullshit.</p><p>The only issue is damages.  I expect that the trial judge is probably going to instruct the jury differently when it comes to damages this time around.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The defendant has got zip for assets .
The RIAA wo n't collect anything .
This case , therefore , only has symbolic value to the RIAA .
The RIAA knows that it would be very stupid to lose a case of symbolic value .
They obviously perceive that their case is strong .
After all , they won the case the first time.The defendant 's lawyer probably has n't devised a super-duper strategy in the mere three weeks that he has had the case .
He has the same basic cards that his predecessor had .
He 's just going to put on a big show--maybe hoping to capitalize on a screw-up by the RIAA .
A major screw-up is unlikely , because the plaintiff 's law firm MU $ T win this high profile case .
I 'll be curious to see if he pisses the trial judge off by wasting a lot of time on frivolous bullshit.The only issue is damages .
I expect that the trial judge is probably going to instruct the jury differently when it comes to damages this time around .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The defendant has got zip for assets.
The RIAA won't collect anything.
This case, therefore, only has symbolic value to the RIAA.
The RIAA knows that it would be very stupid to lose a case of symbolic value.
They obviously perceive that their case is strong.
After all, they won the case the first time.The defendant's lawyer probably hasn't devised a super-duper strategy in the mere three weeks that he has had the case.
He has the same basic cards that his predecessor had.
He's just going to put on a big show--maybe hoping to capitalize on a screw-up by the RIAA.
A major screw-up is unlikely, because the plaintiff's law firm MU$T win this high profile case.
I'll be curious to see if he pisses the trial judge off by wasting a lot of time on frivolous bullshit.The only issue is damages.
I expect that the trial judge is probably going to instruct the jury differently when it comes to damages this time around.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327845</id>
	<title>Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I read his summary, he tells, in neutral terms, about one of the obstacles the record companies have to overcome</p></div><p>He puts 'technical', 'explained' and 'evidence' in quotes when describing that presented by the RIAA. Quotation marks are a way of casting doubt on something, which even the Wikipedia manual of style recognises.</p><p>Furthermore, NYCL has never hid his deep hatred for the recording companies, and has in the past given "legal" (in this case, the quotes are warranted) opinions on the admissibility of evidence that turned out to be false opinions.</p><p>If Rupert Murdoch instructs his newsdesk to always put "lawyer" in quotes when describing NYCL, would that indicate any form of bias? Hm?</p><p>I agree that you should wash your mouth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read his summary , he tells , in neutral terms , about one of the obstacles the record companies have to overcomeHe puts 'technical ' , 'explained ' and 'evidence ' in quotes when describing that presented by the RIAA .
Quotation marks are a way of casting doubt on something , which even the Wikipedia manual of style recognises.Furthermore , NYCL has never hid his deep hatred for the recording companies , and has in the past given " legal " ( in this case , the quotes are warranted ) opinions on the admissibility of evidence that turned out to be false opinions.If Rupert Murdoch instructs his newsdesk to always put " lawyer " in quotes when describing NYCL , would that indicate any form of bias ?
Hm ? I agree that you should wash your mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read his summary, he tells, in neutral terms, about one of the obstacles the record companies have to overcomeHe puts 'technical', 'explained' and 'evidence' in quotes when describing that presented by the RIAA.
Quotation marks are a way of casting doubt on something, which even the Wikipedia manual of style recognises.Furthermore, NYCL has never hid his deep hatred for the recording companies, and has in the past given "legal" (in this case, the quotes are warranted) opinions on the admissibility of evidence that turned out to be false opinions.If Rupert Murdoch instructs his newsdesk to always put "lawyer" in quotes when describing NYCL, would that indicate any form of bias?
Hm?I agree that you should wash your mouth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28329065</id>
	<title>Re:admissability of evidence a sideshow?</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1244972820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm glad the evidence is being given a hard look. And I'm fine with the case being tossed because the evidence is garbage. Jacobson deserves that.

But I think the main issue should boil down to this: "Ok, maybe she shared a few songs on the Internet. So what? Anyone can do that. Millions do."</p> </div><p>Well there are probably many issues in this particular case. There is no single "main" issue. A legal case is like a chain; it is as strong as its weakest link. From what I have seen these past 4 years, there are a number of weak links in the RIAA's chain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad the evidence is being given a hard look .
And I 'm fine with the case being tossed because the evidence is garbage .
Jacobson deserves that .
But I think the main issue should boil down to this : " Ok , maybe she shared a few songs on the Internet .
So what ?
Anyone can do that .
Millions do .
" Well there are probably many issues in this particular case .
There is no single " main " issue .
A legal case is like a chain ; it is as strong as its weakest link .
From what I have seen these past 4 years , there are a number of weak links in the RIAA 's chain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad the evidence is being given a hard look.
And I'm fine with the case being tossed because the evidence is garbage.
Jacobson deserves that.
But I think the main issue should boil down to this: "Ok, maybe she shared a few songs on the Internet.
So what?
Anyone can do that.
Millions do.
" Well there are probably many issues in this particular case.
There is no single "main" issue.
A legal case is like a chain; it is as strong as its weakest link.
From what I have seen these past 4 years, there are a number of weak links in the RIAA's chain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327757</id>
	<title>dropping the case</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245007080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This case seems like the exact type of case the RIAA avoids like the plague. Any time any of their methods are subjected to any serious scrutiny, they drop the case and run. They know any serious discovery will kill their racket.</i></p><p><i>So what's to keep them from dropping this like a radioactive potato when the bevy of tech savvy pro bono lawyers start to tear Mediasentry a new one?</i></p><p>I may be wrong but I think the defendant can file a counter lawsuit, which is what I'd do if I could.  Not only would I do it but I'd try to get other defendants to join then file for class action status.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This case seems like the exact type of case the RIAA avoids like the plague .
Any time any of their methods are subjected to any serious scrutiny , they drop the case and run .
They know any serious discovery will kill their racket.So what 's to keep them from dropping this like a radioactive potato when the bevy of tech savvy pro bono lawyers start to tear Mediasentry a new one ? I may be wrong but I think the defendant can file a counter lawsuit , which is what I 'd do if I could .
Not only would I do it but I 'd try to get other defendants to join then file for class action status .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case seems like the exact type of case the RIAA avoids like the plague.
Any time any of their methods are subjected to any serious scrutiny, they drop the case and run.
They know any serious discovery will kill their racket.So what's to keep them from dropping this like a radioactive potato when the bevy of tech savvy pro bono lawyers start to tear Mediasentry a new one?I may be wrong but I think the defendant can file a counter lawsuit, which is what I'd do if I could.
Not only would I do it but I'd try to get other defendants to join then file for class action status.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28334963</id>
	<title>Re:Lawyers and geeks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245079800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I can think of an even simpler and more interesting argument the defense could make. When we buy a CD, we purchase a use license. Further, that use license is only revealed after the CD is purchased. No store I know takes returns on opened CDs, so if I do not agree with the terms, I am stuck for the cost of a CD I cannot legally use. I don't think federal law permits the unilateral creation of a contract. We have the right to make a backup copy of what we purchase, given how fragile a cd or media file can be. The RIAA should have to prove that people involved in the suit had NEVER purchased a CD or media file containing what they are alleged to have stolen. I'm really disappointed that scum at RIAA didn't come after me... they would have been met with arrest warrants based on the laws of my state of residence, and I would have proudly displayed my rather immense collection of CDs. I would have then DEMANDED those pogos provide me with backups for every CD I own that I am prevented from backing up by their copyright protection software. Shoot, I have nothing better to do...I may still go sign a few warrants against those jerks...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I can think of an even simpler and more interesting argument the defense could make .
When we buy a CD , we purchase a use license .
Further , that use license is only revealed after the CD is purchased .
No store I know takes returns on opened CDs , so if I do not agree with the terms , I am stuck for the cost of a CD I can not legally use .
I do n't think federal law permits the unilateral creation of a contract .
We have the right to make a backup copy of what we purchase , given how fragile a cd or media file can be .
The RIAA should have to prove that people involved in the suit had NEVER purchased a CD or media file containing what they are alleged to have stolen .
I 'm really disappointed that scum at RIAA did n't come after me... they would have been met with arrest warrants based on the laws of my state of residence , and I would have proudly displayed my rather immense collection of CDs .
I would have then DEMANDED those pogos provide me with backups for every CD I own that I am prevented from backing up by their copyright protection software .
Shoot , I have nothing better to do...I may still go sign a few warrants against those jerks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I can think of an even simpler and more interesting argument the defense could make.
When we buy a CD, we purchase a use license.
Further, that use license is only revealed after the CD is purchased.
No store I know takes returns on opened CDs, so if I do not agree with the terms, I am stuck for the cost of a CD I cannot legally use.
I don't think federal law permits the unilateral creation of a contract.
We have the right to make a backup copy of what we purchase, given how fragile a cd or media file can be.
The RIAA should have to prove that people involved in the suit had NEVER purchased a CD or media file containing what they are alleged to have stolen.
I'm really disappointed that scum at RIAA didn't come after me... they would have been met with arrest warrants based on the laws of my state of residence, and I would have proudly displayed my rather immense collection of CDs.
I would have then DEMANDED those pogos provide me with backups for every CD I own that I am prevented from backing up by their copyright protection software.
Shoot, I have nothing better to do...I may still go sign a few warrants against those jerks...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327475</id>
	<title>A denied motion to dismiss?</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1245004200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Conceivably, the RIAA could move to dismiss, this is true.  But it's just a motion and the court may decide that a motion to dismiss should be denied, requiring the RIAA to go through with.  Sort of like saying "finish what you started."
<br> <br>
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems rather plausible that a judge could deny a motion to dismiss for the prosecution just as much as for the defendant.  That could make for a very interesting discussion in open court.
<br> <br>
Just my $0.02.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Conceivably , the RIAA could move to dismiss , this is true .
But it 's just a motion and the court may decide that a motion to dismiss should be denied , requiring the RIAA to go through with .
Sort of like saying " finish what you started .
" Of course , I 'm not a lawyer , but it seems rather plausible that a judge could deny a motion to dismiss for the prosecution just as much as for the defendant .
That could make for a very interesting discussion in open court .
Just my $ 0.02 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conceivably, the RIAA could move to dismiss, this is true.
But it's just a motion and the court may decide that a motion to dismiss should be denied, requiring the RIAA to go through with.
Sort of like saying "finish what you started.
"
 
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems rather plausible that a judge could deny a motion to dismiss for the prosecution just as much as for the defendant.
That could make for a very interesting discussion in open court.
Just my $0.02.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327293</id>
	<title>Re:Lawyers and geeks</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1245002340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find more often than not that lawyers, especially older male lawyers, believe they are of superior intelligence and if someone needs to explain something to them, it is somehow insulting or demeaning.  Perhaps this is not limited to lawyers, but I have to say, all of the male lawyers I have known seem to reflect this pattern of not being open to new information.</p><p>But there are attorneys that specialize in certain areas.  Malpractice lawyers tend to know a lot about medicine.  There aren't many if any "technology" specialist lawyers and perhaps there should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find more often than not that lawyers , especially older male lawyers , believe they are of superior intelligence and if someone needs to explain something to them , it is somehow insulting or demeaning .
Perhaps this is not limited to lawyers , but I have to say , all of the male lawyers I have known seem to reflect this pattern of not being open to new information.But there are attorneys that specialize in certain areas .
Malpractice lawyers tend to know a lot about medicine .
There are n't many if any " technology " specialist lawyers and perhaps there should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find more often than not that lawyers, especially older male lawyers, believe they are of superior intelligence and if someone needs to explain something to them, it is somehow insulting or demeaning.
Perhaps this is not limited to lawyers, but I have to say, all of the male lawyers I have known seem to reflect this pattern of not being open to new information.But there are attorneys that specialize in certain areas.
Malpractice lawyers tend to know a lot about medicine.
There aren't many if any "technology" specialist lawyers and perhaps there should be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865</id>
	<title>Lawyers and geeks</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244998740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know it seems like an unlikely mix, but I've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one. Today it seems like this is the license to print money...</p><p>But, when lawyers can't be tech savvy, why can't they hire tech people to explain to them where the (technical) holes in suits lie? They would save themselves a lot of work if they could basically say "your honor, my opponent based his suit on bollocks, and here's why". No judge on this planet wants to look stupid, that's why they can (at least here) call for expert witnesses (or counsels) themselves, without the need for either side to call one. Judges, though, are just like the average human: Overworked and sometimes lazy.</p><p>So they usually don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it seems like an unlikely mix , but I 've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one .
Today it seems like this is the license to print money...But , when lawyers ca n't be tech savvy , why ca n't they hire tech people to explain to them where the ( technical ) holes in suits lie ?
They would save themselves a lot of work if they could basically say " your honor , my opponent based his suit on bollocks , and here 's why " .
No judge on this planet wants to look stupid , that 's why they can ( at least here ) call for expert witnesses ( or counsels ) themselves , without the need for either side to call one .
Judges , though , are just like the average human : Overworked and sometimes lazy.So they usually do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it seems like an unlikely mix, but I've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one.
Today it seems like this is the license to print money...But, when lawyers can't be tech savvy, why can't they hire tech people to explain to them where the (technical) holes in suits lie?
They would save themselves a lot of work if they could basically say "your honor, my opponent based his suit on bollocks, and here's why".
No judge on this planet wants to look stupid, that's why they can (at least here) call for expert witnesses (or counsels) themselves, without the need for either side to call one.
Judges, though, are just like the average human: Overworked and sometimes lazy.So they usually don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327231</id>
	<title>They don't, they call Joe.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245001800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget that the new Obama administrations in in the Media Cartel's pocket worse than Bush.</p><p>Joe Biden is beholden to the IP Lobby, and has been public reassuring them to no end. He is ultimately responsible for at least 6 RIAA lawyers being install at the top of the Justice Department.</p><p>Forget Dick, they've got Joe to pull the strings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget that the new Obama administrations in in the Media Cartel 's pocket worse than Bush.Joe Biden is beholden to the IP Lobby , and has been public reassuring them to no end .
He is ultimately responsible for at least 6 RIAA lawyers being install at the top of the Justice Department.Forget Dick , they 've got Joe to pull the strings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget that the new Obama administrations in in the Media Cartel's pocket worse than Bush.Joe Biden is beholden to the IP Lobby, and has been public reassuring them to no end.
He is ultimately responsible for at least 6 RIAA lawyers being install at the top of the Justice Department.Forget Dick, they've got Joe to pull the strings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28332825</id>
	<title>Re:Translation:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245056820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you are on serious medication if you think NYCL is neutral. He exists purely to drive traffic to his ad-infested blog which plays on this bullshit belief that when you steal music, its the people prosecuting you that are in the wrong.<br>he is worse than the fucking record companies</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you are on serious medication if you think NYCL is neutral .
He exists purely to drive traffic to his ad-infested blog which plays on this bullshit belief that when you steal music , its the people prosecuting you that are in the wrong.he is worse than the fucking record companies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are on serious medication if you think NYCL is neutral.
He exists purely to drive traffic to his ad-infested blog which plays on this bullshit belief that when you steal music, its the people prosecuting you that are in the wrong.he is worse than the fucking record companies</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327049</id>
	<title>Re:Translation:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245000060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am in an easily baited mood today so I bite...
<p>
NewYorkCountyLawyer is a well known lawyer and a respected expert in the area of RIAA legislation. When I read his summary, he tells, in neutral terms, about one of the obstacles the record companies have to overcome in this second trial. I can not say how the admissibility issue will pan out and I fully agree with Ray's "This should be interesting."
</p><p>
You are free to have your own opinions about the RIAA and file sharing, I have mine. I would certainly appreciate if you attacked the arguments instead of the writer, it makes for a more grown-up and polite discussion.
</p><p>
Now I'm off to wash my mouth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am in an easily baited mood today so I bite.. . NewYorkCountyLawyer is a well known lawyer and a respected expert in the area of RIAA legislation .
When I read his summary , he tells , in neutral terms , about one of the obstacles the record companies have to overcome in this second trial .
I can not say how the admissibility issue will pan out and I fully agree with Ray 's " This should be interesting .
" You are free to have your own opinions about the RIAA and file sharing , I have mine .
I would certainly appreciate if you attacked the arguments instead of the writer , it makes for a more grown-up and polite discussion .
Now I 'm off to wash my mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am in an easily baited mood today so I bite...

NewYorkCountyLawyer is a well known lawyer and a respected expert in the area of RIAA legislation.
When I read his summary, he tells, in neutral terms, about one of the obstacles the record companies have to overcome in this second trial.
I can not say how the admissibility issue will pan out and I fully agree with Ray's "This should be interesting.
"

You are free to have your own opinions about the RIAA and file sharing, I have mine.
I would certainly appreciate if you attacked the arguments instead of the writer, it makes for a more grown-up and polite discussion.
Now I'm off to wash my mouth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327093</id>
	<title>Re:Translation:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245000480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe I'm just being silly, but I prefer journalism to at least have a pretense of being unbiased.</p></div><p>You are, indeed, just being silly.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Would it kill NYCL to at least try to be a tad even-handed?</p></div><p>Probably not, but it would be phony. Isn't lying what people complain about when they talk about lawyers?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not saying that's a deal breaker if it does, mind you...</p></div><p>I don't understand, it sounds almost like you want him to lie about how he feels even if it kills him.</p><p>Honestly, the best news source would be one that presents you with the biases of the authors of articles up front, and which provides you with competing articles with paragraph rebuttals to one another, so that you can get a feel for the different viewpoints. There are often more than two sides to a story, as well. Something like that might look a little bit like Slashdot, except with staff writers and professional editorship; personally, I often find the comments to be the most interesting and insightful part of a story (even when they're not mine.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm just being silly , but I prefer journalism to at least have a pretense of being unbiased.You are , indeed , just being silly.Would it kill NYCL to at least try to be a tad even-handed ? Probably not , but it would be phony .
Is n't lying what people complain about when they talk about lawyers ? I 'm not saying that 's a deal breaker if it does , mind you...I do n't understand , it sounds almost like you want him to lie about how he feels even if it kills him.Honestly , the best news source would be one that presents you with the biases of the authors of articles up front , and which provides you with competing articles with paragraph rebuttals to one another , so that you can get a feel for the different viewpoints .
There are often more than two sides to a story , as well .
Something like that might look a little bit like Slashdot , except with staff writers and professional editorship ; personally , I often find the comments to be the most interesting and insightful part of a story ( even when they 're not mine .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm just being silly, but I prefer journalism to at least have a pretense of being unbiased.You are, indeed, just being silly.Would it kill NYCL to at least try to be a tad even-handed?Probably not, but it would be phony.
Isn't lying what people complain about when they talk about lawyers?I'm not saying that's a deal breaker if it does, mind you...I don't understand, it sounds almost like you want him to lie about how he feels even if it kills him.Honestly, the best news source would be one that presents you with the biases of the authors of articles up front, and which provides you with competing articles with paragraph rebuttals to one another, so that you can get a feel for the different viewpoints.
There are often more than two sides to a story, as well.
Something like that might look a little bit like Slashdot, except with staff writers and professional editorship; personally, I often find the comments to be the most interesting and insightful part of a story (even when they're not mine.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327575</id>
	<title>Re:evidence was accepted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245005040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ars posted a story days ago with better information than what the summary contains. The judge has already allowed the MediaSentry evidence and isn't buying most of the defense's excuses. I like NYCL a lot, but I am surprised he wasn't aware of that.

<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-judge-bars-fair-use-defense-oks-mediasentry-evidence.ars" title="arstechnica.com">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-judge-bars-fair-use-defense-oks-mediasentry-evidence.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</p> </div><p>I was aware of the article and, more importantly, of <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#3651721133021875327" title="blogspot.com">the ruling</a> [blogspot.com] to which it refers. That related solely to the motion to suppress on the ground of illegality; it had nothing to do with the Rule 702 objection.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ars posted a story days ago with better information than what the summary contains .
The judge has already allowed the MediaSentry evidence and is n't buying most of the defense 's excuses .
I like NYCL a lot , but I am surprised he was n't aware of that .
http : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-judge-bars-fair-use-defense-oks-mediasentry-evidence.ars [ arstechnica.com ] I was aware of the article and , more importantly , of the ruling [ blogspot.com ] to which it refers .
That related solely to the motion to suppress on the ground of illegality ; it had nothing to do with the Rule 702 objection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ars posted a story days ago with better information than what the summary contains.
The judge has already allowed the MediaSentry evidence and isn't buying most of the defense's excuses.
I like NYCL a lot, but I am surprised he wasn't aware of that.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-judge-bars-fair-use-defense-oks-mediasentry-evidence.ars [arstechnica.com] I was aware of the article and, more importantly, of the ruling [blogspot.com] to which it refers.
That related solely to the motion to suppress on the ground of illegality; it had nothing to do with the Rule 702 objection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327207</id>
	<title>Re:Lawyers and geeks</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1245001440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>
I know it seems like an unlikely mix, but I've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one. </i>
<br>
<br>
Are you serious?  Go visit jdunderground.com if you don't believe me, but there is a huge glut of lawyers, and finding a legal job is very, very difficult in this economy.<br>
<br>
<i>But, when lawyers can't be tech savvy, why can't they hire tech people to explain to them where the (technical) holes in suits lie?</i>
<br>
<br>
Lawyers often do hire tech people to advise them on cases, but a lot of the times the cases hinge on things other than technical issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it seems like an unlikely mix , but I 've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one .
Are you serious ?
Go visit jdunderground.com if you do n't believe me , but there is a huge glut of lawyers , and finding a legal job is very , very difficult in this economy .
But , when lawyers ca n't be tech savvy , why ca n't they hire tech people to explain to them where the ( technical ) holes in suits lie ?
Lawyers often do hire tech people to advise them on cases , but a lot of the times the cases hinge on things other than technical issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I know it seems like an unlikely mix, but I've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one.
Are you serious?
Go visit jdunderground.com if you don't believe me, but there is a huge glut of lawyers, and finding a legal job is very, very difficult in this economy.
But, when lawyers can't be tech savvy, why can't they hire tech people to explain to them where the (technical) holes in suits lie?
Lawyers often do hire tech people to advise them on cases, but a lot of the times the cases hinge on things other than technical issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327001</id>
	<title>Re:Translation:</title>
	<author>Merls the Sneaky</author>
	<datestamp>1244999760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe that has to do with his contempt of **AA lawers and thier tactics.</p><p>He is also  acutely aware of the audience on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and the type of summaries that peak interest. ( therefore driving up traffic to his blog.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe that has to do with his contempt of * * AA lawers and thier tactics.He is also acutely aware of the audience on / .
and the type of summaries that peak interest .
( therefore driving up traffic to his blog .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe that has to do with his contempt of **AA lawers and thier tactics.He is also  acutely aware of the audience on /.
and the type of summaries that peak interest.
( therefore driving up traffic to his blog.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28332195</id>
	<title>Re:Lawyers and geeks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245005280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I know it seems like an unlikely mix, but I've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one.</i> </p><p>Not unlikely and not all that uncommon, I can immediately think of ten people in my personal aquaintance (not includiing myself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... eleven) who have quals in both fields.  Patent attorneys tend to be full of lawyer/(geeks|engineers|scientists).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it seems like an unlikely mix , but I 've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one .
Not unlikely and not all that uncommon , I can immediately think of ten people in my personal aquaintance ( not includiing myself ... eleven ) who have quals in both fields .
Patent attorneys tend to be full of lawyer/ ( geeks | engineers | scientists ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I know it seems like an unlikely mix, but I've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one.
Not unlikely and not all that uncommon, I can immediately think of ten people in my personal aquaintance (not includiing myself ... eleven) who have quals in both fields.
Patent attorneys tend to be full of lawyer/(geeks|engineers|scientists).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327173</id>
	<title>Re:I hope so, but...</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1245001080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what's to keep them from dropping this like a radioactive potato when the bevy of tech savvy pro bono lawyers start to tear Mediasentry a new one?</p></div><p>Ethics.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me ducks</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what 's to keep them from dropping this like a radioactive potato when the bevy of tech savvy pro bono lawyers start to tear Mediasentry a new one ? Ethics .
/me ducks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what's to keep them from dropping this like a radioactive potato when the bevy of tech savvy pro bono lawyers start to tear Mediasentry a new one?Ethics.
/me ducks
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328503</id>
	<title>Re:I hope so, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245012360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize that by criticizing the RIAA evidence you are implicitly agreeing that the defendant would be financially liable were better quality evidence produced. In other words its OK to download copyrighted material without payment to or the permission of the copyright holder. That might be a defensible position but I wish there would be openness about this. Otherwise its just another common claim that you can get away with stealing sometimes which is undoubtedly true but trivial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that by criticizing the RIAA evidence you are implicitly agreeing that the defendant would be financially liable were better quality evidence produced .
In other words its OK to download copyrighted material without payment to or the permission of the copyright holder .
That might be a defensible position but I wish there would be openness about this .
Otherwise its just another common claim that you can get away with stealing sometimes which is undoubtedly true but trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that by criticizing the RIAA evidence you are implicitly agreeing that the defendant would be financially liable were better quality evidence produced.
In other words its OK to download copyrighted material without payment to or the permission of the copyright holder.
That might be a defensible position but I wish there would be openness about this.
Otherwise its just another common claim that you can get away with stealing sometimes which is undoubtedly true but trivial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328667</id>
	<title>admissability of evidence a sideshow?</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244970180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad the evidence is being given a hard look.  And I'm fine with the case being tossed because the evidence is garbage.  Jacobson deserves that.

</p><p>But I think the main issue should boil down to this:  "Ok, maybe she shared a few songs on the Internet.  So what?  Anyone can do that.  Millions do."  Which is the more serious infraction, sharing files, or speeding?  I would say speeding is a more serious offense.  Even the lowly parking offense might be considered more serious.  Therefore the penalty for file sharing should be lighter than the penalty for those others.  Don't admit guilt.  I have heard of a "no contest" plea, perhaps that is the way to go once the penalty is reduced to spare change.

</p><p>And, isn't there a principle about equal applicability?  That is, it's not fair to single out one person to make an example of when millions of others are in violation and don't know it and don't have any reason to think they are doing anything wrong.  I particularly mean that the mere viewing of a few Youtube videos is extremely likely to violate many copyrights.  One might as well be convicted for checking out library books and letting someone else borrow them briefly, not knowing that they are going to run copies.  When everyone is guilty, the law becomes merely a means to inflict punishments arbitrarily, for any reason all at.  Have people you don't like hauled in and convicted.  I heard of a case where the city of Richardson, TX passed an ordinance forbidding "For Sale" signs on cars when they were in use.  Some guy from another suburb who was trying to sell his car passed through and got nailed by the Richardson police.  He beat the tickets and fines by applying this principle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad the evidence is being given a hard look .
And I 'm fine with the case being tossed because the evidence is garbage .
Jacobson deserves that .
But I think the main issue should boil down to this : " Ok , maybe she shared a few songs on the Internet .
So what ?
Anyone can do that .
Millions do .
" Which is the more serious infraction , sharing files , or speeding ?
I would say speeding is a more serious offense .
Even the lowly parking offense might be considered more serious .
Therefore the penalty for file sharing should be lighter than the penalty for those others .
Do n't admit guilt .
I have heard of a " no contest " plea , perhaps that is the way to go once the penalty is reduced to spare change .
And , is n't there a principle about equal applicability ?
That is , it 's not fair to single out one person to make an example of when millions of others are in violation and do n't know it and do n't have any reason to think they are doing anything wrong .
I particularly mean that the mere viewing of a few Youtube videos is extremely likely to violate many copyrights .
One might as well be convicted for checking out library books and letting someone else borrow them briefly , not knowing that they are going to run copies .
When everyone is guilty , the law becomes merely a means to inflict punishments arbitrarily , for any reason all at .
Have people you do n't like hauled in and convicted .
I heard of a case where the city of Richardson , TX passed an ordinance forbidding " For Sale " signs on cars when they were in use .
Some guy from another suburb who was trying to sell his car passed through and got nailed by the Richardson police .
He beat the tickets and fines by applying this principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad the evidence is being given a hard look.
And I'm fine with the case being tossed because the evidence is garbage.
Jacobson deserves that.
But I think the main issue should boil down to this:  "Ok, maybe she shared a few songs on the Internet.
So what?
Anyone can do that.
Millions do.
"  Which is the more serious infraction, sharing files, or speeding?
I would say speeding is a more serious offense.
Even the lowly parking offense might be considered more serious.
Therefore the penalty for file sharing should be lighter than the penalty for those others.
Don't admit guilt.
I have heard of a "no contest" plea, perhaps that is the way to go once the penalty is reduced to spare change.
And, isn't there a principle about equal applicability?
That is, it's not fair to single out one person to make an example of when millions of others are in violation and don't know it and don't have any reason to think they are doing anything wrong.
I particularly mean that the mere viewing of a few Youtube videos is extremely likely to violate many copyrights.
One might as well be convicted for checking out library books and letting someone else borrow them briefly, not knowing that they are going to run copies.
When everyone is guilty, the law becomes merely a means to inflict punishments arbitrarily, for any reason all at.
Have people you don't like hauled in and convicted.
I heard of a case where the city of Richardson, TX passed an ordinance forbidding "For Sale" signs on cars when they were in use.
Some guy from another suburb who was trying to sell his car passed through and got nailed by the Richardson police.
He beat the tickets and fines by applying this principle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28336499</id>
	<title>Re:Lawyers and geeks - Engineer meets Lawschool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Law School 101 Teacher:  Let's get started.  Blah blah blah blah blah...<br>Engineer Law Student: Hey, my instinct tells me that isn't truth, it is just lying!<br>Law School 101 Teacher: We're here to teach you to -think- like a lawyer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Law School 101 Teacher : Let 's get started .
Blah blah blah blah blah...Engineer Law Student : Hey , my instinct tells me that is n't truth , it is just lying ! Law School 101 Teacher : We 're here to teach you to -think- like a lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Law School 101 Teacher:  Let's get started.
Blah blah blah blah blah...Engineer Law Student: Hey, my instinct tells me that isn't truth, it is just lying!Law School 101 Teacher: We're here to teach you to -think- like a lawyer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326927</id>
	<title>Translation:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244999160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NYCL is once again playing the pundit, and shrilly declaring that the RIAA is in trouble without any kind of recognition of the other side of things!</p><p>Maybe I'm just being silly, but I prefer journalism to at least have a pretense of being unbiased.  Would it kill NYCL to at least try to be a tad even-handed?  I'm not saying that's a deal breaker if it does, mind you...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NYCL is once again playing the pundit , and shrilly declaring that the RIAA is in trouble without any kind of recognition of the other side of things ! Maybe I 'm just being silly , but I prefer journalism to at least have a pretense of being unbiased .
Would it kill NYCL to at least try to be a tad even-handed ?
I 'm not saying that 's a deal breaker if it does , mind you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NYCL is once again playing the pundit, and shrilly declaring that the RIAA is in trouble without any kind of recognition of the other side of things!Maybe I'm just being silly, but I prefer journalism to at least have a pretense of being unbiased.
Would it kill NYCL to at least try to be a tad even-handed?
I'm not saying that's a deal breaker if it does, mind you...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28330685</id>
	<title>Re:evidence was accepted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244988240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I like NYCL a lot, but I am surprised he wasn't aware of that.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I find that when I am about to say something like that about someone who follows a topic both closely and professionally, that it serves me well to pause and consider that perhaps I am the ignorant one and not the other person.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like NYCL a lot , but I am surprised he was n't aware of that .
I find that when I am about to say something like that about someone who follows a topic both closely and professionally , that it serves me well to pause and consider that perhaps I am the ignorant one and not the other person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like NYCL a lot, but I am surprised he wasn't aware of that.
I find that when I am about to say something like that about someone who follows a topic both closely and professionally, that it serves me well to pause and consider that perhaps I am the ignorant one and not the other person.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28333389</id>
	<title>Re:Lawyers and geeks</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1245066300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm doing a Law degree for exactly this reason.<br> <br>A decade of IT experience looks like it will prove very lucrative within Law, at least for a good few years (enough to get to a very safe financial position).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm doing a Law degree for exactly this reason .
A decade of IT experience looks like it will prove very lucrative within Law , at least for a good few years ( enough to get to a very safe financial position ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm doing a Law degree for exactly this reason.
A decade of IT experience looks like it will prove very lucrative within Law, at least for a good few years (enough to get to a very safe financial position).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28329295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28333415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28336499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28330435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28332825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28330685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28332195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28334963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28333389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28332837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28329065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28332037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28331459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1453202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1453202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28330685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1453202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28331459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28330435
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1453202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1453202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28332837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1453202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1453202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327049
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28332825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1453202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1453202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28328667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28329065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28329295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1453202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28326865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28333389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28334963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28333415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28336499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28332195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28327293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1453202.28332037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
