<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_17_1436255</id>
	<title>Thomas' Testimony and the RIAA's Near-Fatal Error</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245250920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://harmono.dromo.us/" rel="nofollow">eldavojohn</a> writes <i>"The long and torrid trial of Jammie Thomas is in <a href="//news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/14/1453202&amp;tid=123">its second stage</a> and in full swing.  Yesterday, two major events took place: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars">Thomas gave her surprising testimony</a> and the RIAA <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/riaa-lawyers-toss-a-skunk-in-the-jury-box-apologize.ars">was threatened for not disclosing new information to the opposing counsel</a>.  Thomas claimed she didn't know what KaZaA was before the trial started.  She also admitted that the hard drive handed over to investigators was different than the one that was in her computer during the time of infringement. Her testimony from the first trial was that 'the hard drive replacement had taken place in 2004 and that the drive had not been swapped again since.' This is problematic because the new hard drive had a manufacturing date of 2005. The RIAA had its own troubles, almost losing all evidence from a particular witness when they added an additional log file to evidence without the defense being notified of it.  The judge mercifully only removed that new evidence from the trial. It was related to whether or not an external hard drive was ever connected to the computer."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " The long and torrid trial of Jammie Thomas is in its second stage and in full swing .
Yesterday , two major events took place : Thomas gave her surprising testimony and the RIAA was threatened for not disclosing new information to the opposing counsel .
Thomas claimed she did n't know what KaZaA was before the trial started .
She also admitted that the hard drive handed over to investigators was different than the one that was in her computer during the time of infringement .
Her testimony from the first trial was that 'the hard drive replacement had taken place in 2004 and that the drive had not been swapped again since .
' This is problematic because the new hard drive had a manufacturing date of 2005 .
The RIAA had its own troubles , almost losing all evidence from a particular witness when they added an additional log file to evidence without the defense being notified of it .
The judge mercifully only removed that new evidence from the trial .
It was related to whether or not an external hard drive was ever connected to the computer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "The long and torrid trial of Jammie Thomas is in its second stage and in full swing.
Yesterday, two major events took place: Thomas gave her surprising testimony and the RIAA was threatened for not disclosing new information to the opposing counsel.
Thomas claimed she didn't know what KaZaA was before the trial started.
She also admitted that the hard drive handed over to investigators was different than the one that was in her computer during the time of infringement.
Her testimony from the first trial was that 'the hard drive replacement had taken place in 2004 and that the drive had not been swapped again since.
' This is problematic because the new hard drive had a manufacturing date of 2005.
The RIAA had its own troubles, almost losing all evidence from a particular witness when they added an additional log file to evidence without the defense being notified of it.
The judge mercifully only removed that new evidence from the trial.
It was related to whether or not an external hard drive was ever connected to the computer.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362091</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, if they requested a search of her car (for instance), that would probably get tossed because it's unlikely to be relevant.</p></div><p>What if they requested her salad?  Would that get tossed as well?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , if they requested a search of her car ( for instance ) , that would probably get tossed because it 's unlikely to be relevant.What if they requested her salad ?
Would that get tossed as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, if they requested a search of her car (for instance), that would probably get tossed because it's unlikely to be relevant.What if they requested her salad?
Would that get tossed as well?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28365911</id>
	<title>Re:This will be argued to symantics</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245231360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>All this will prove is that they can hold a big slot on your report, and my assumption is most creditors would begin to glance over them like medical debts if the RIAA makes them common.</i> Not all torts can be evaded by declaring bankruptcy, e.g. an "intentional tort" cannot. Unlike medical bills, Jammie may not be able to get out of this by declaring bankruptcy. IANAL so I'm not sure what rules apply in this specific case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this will prove is that they can hold a big slot on your report , and my assumption is most creditors would begin to glance over them like medical debts if the RIAA makes them common .
Not all torts can be evaded by declaring bankruptcy , e.g .
an " intentional tort " can not .
Unlike medical bills , Jammie may not be able to get out of this by declaring bankruptcy .
IANAL so I 'm not sure what rules apply in this specific case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this will prove is that they can hold a big slot on your report, and my assumption is most creditors would begin to glance over them like medical debts if the RIAA makes them common.
Not all torts can be evaded by declaring bankruptcy, e.g.
an "intentional tort" cannot.
Unlike medical bills, Jammie may not be able to get out of this by declaring bankruptcy.
IANAL so I'm not sure what rules apply in this specific case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363065</id>
	<title>Re:Did she profit from any of this infringement?</title>
	<author>Amazing Quantum Man</author>
	<datestamp>1245261240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you're SCO [one of their arguments was "Oh, we spent *THAT* money".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you 're SCO [ one of their arguments was " Oh , we spent * THAT * money " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you're SCO [one of their arguments was "Oh, we spent *THAT* money".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361867</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>spydum</author>
	<datestamp>1245255360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Innocent until proven guilty, yes.
However, it says nothing about being inconvenienced. That's the unfortunate side to our legal system: although we pretend the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt, you still are left dealing with the issue, even if innocent. Expect legal fees, court dates, evidence collection, and with all of that comes time off of work, phone calls, stress, etc..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Innocent until proven guilty , yes .
However , it says nothing about being inconvenienced .
That 's the unfortunate side to our legal system : although we pretend the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt , you still are left dealing with the issue , even if innocent .
Expect legal fees , court dates , evidence collection , and with all of that comes time off of work , phone calls , stress , etc. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Innocent until proven guilty, yes.
However, it says nothing about being inconvenienced.
That's the unfortunate side to our legal system: although we pretend the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt, you still are left dealing with the issue, even if innocent.
Expect legal fees, court dates, evidence collection, and with all of that comes time off of work, phone calls, stress, etc..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362491</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>billcopc</author>
	<datestamp>1245258480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like so many people, you fail to distinguish criminal cases from civil cases.  RIAA vs Anything is a civil case.</p><p>If I decide I don't like you (and you're off to a slow start), and I accuse you of defrauding me for some arbitrary amount, that does not grant me the right to barge into your home with an armed rent-a-cop and confiscate your bank records.  I have to present reasonable proof by my own means, the court can't ask the defendant to self-incriminate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like so many people , you fail to distinguish criminal cases from civil cases .
RIAA vs Anything is a civil case.If I decide I do n't like you ( and you 're off to a slow start ) , and I accuse you of defrauding me for some arbitrary amount , that does not grant me the right to barge into your home with an armed rent-a-cop and confiscate your bank records .
I have to present reasonable proof by my own means , the court ca n't ask the defendant to self-incriminate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like so many people, you fail to distinguish criminal cases from civil cases.
RIAA vs Anything is a civil case.If I decide I don't like you (and you're off to a slow start), and I accuse you of defrauding me for some arbitrary amount, that does not grant me the right to barge into your home with an armed rent-a-cop and confiscate your bank records.
I have to present reasonable proof by my own means, the court can't ask the defendant to self-incriminate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363131</id>
	<title>Re:Replacement hard disk</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245261540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, because she lied about when it was replaced. The hard drive provided was represented as having been in the computer when the infringement occurred but was not. That means she falsified the evidence and any testimony in her favor concerning the contents of the drive is invalid. Because she stated under oath that the drive was in use in her computer during the infringement and knew that it was not, she has committed perjury and it calls into question every other statement she has made.</p><p>Had she stated that the drive was replaced, the claimant could have made an attempt to retrieve the drive that was in use at the time, but she hid the fact until it was effectively impossible to recover the drive to reveal the fact.</p><p>All told, it looks like she was hiding evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , because she lied about when it was replaced .
The hard drive provided was represented as having been in the computer when the infringement occurred but was not .
That means she falsified the evidence and any testimony in her favor concerning the contents of the drive is invalid .
Because she stated under oath that the drive was in use in her computer during the infringement and knew that it was not , she has committed perjury and it calls into question every other statement she has made.Had she stated that the drive was replaced , the claimant could have made an attempt to retrieve the drive that was in use at the time , but she hid the fact until it was effectively impossible to recover the drive to reveal the fact.All told , it looks like she was hiding evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, because she lied about when it was replaced.
The hard drive provided was represented as having been in the computer when the infringement occurred but was not.
That means she falsified the evidence and any testimony in her favor concerning the contents of the drive is invalid.
Because she stated under oath that the drive was in use in her computer during the infringement and knew that it was not, she has committed perjury and it calls into question every other statement she has made.Had she stated that the drive was replaced, the claimant could have made an attempt to retrieve the drive that was in use at the time, but she hid the fact until it was effectively impossible to recover the drive to reveal the fact.All told, it looks like she was hiding evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362881</id>
	<title>Torrid trial?</title>
	<author>agent420</author>
	<datestamp>1245260400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They downloaded the trial from BitTorrent?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They downloaded the trial from BitTorrent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They downloaded the trial from BitTorrent?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362813</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245260040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does anyone have to give fingerprints, turn over documents and emails, submit to questioning, allow their property to be searched, etc?</p><p>It is something called evidence gathering and involves things like subpoenas, warrants, and depositions. Try learning a little about the law some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does anyone have to give fingerprints , turn over documents and emails , submit to questioning , allow their property to be searched , etc ? It is something called evidence gathering and involves things like subpoenas , warrants , and depositions .
Try learning a little about the law some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does anyone have to give fingerprints, turn over documents and emails, submit to questioning, allow their property to be searched, etc?It is something called evidence gathering and involves things like subpoenas, warrants, and depositions.
Try learning a little about the law some time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362219</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>RendonWI</author>
	<datestamp>1245257220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and "prove" her innocence? Nobody is forced to prove innocence. The RIAA should be given the challenge, without her hard drive, of proving guilt.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/shrug (IE: external records, etc.)</p></div><p>How is this modded insightful, it is factually wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and " prove " her innocence ?
Nobody is forced to prove innocence .
The RIAA should be given the challenge , without her hard drive , of proving guilt .
/shrug ( IE : external records , etc .
) How is this modded insightful , it is factually wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and "prove" her innocence?
Nobody is forced to prove innocence.
The RIAA should be given the challenge, without her hard drive, of proving guilt.
/shrug (IE: external records, etc.
)How is this modded insightful, it is factually wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362695</id>
	<title>Re:why don't the RIAA sue the ISPs</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245259440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why don't they sue the Internet companies for hosting the material and facilitating illegal copying. Instead of suing end users, grannies and dead people? Or did the CAN-SPAM act indemnify the ISPs.</p></div></blockquote><p>The ISP was not hosting the material. Jamie was hosting the material. Good enough reason for you?</p><p>Or, are you suggesting that ISPs be held accountable for the information on their customer's computers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they sue the Internet companies for hosting the material and facilitating illegal copying .
Instead of suing end users , grannies and dead people ?
Or did the CAN-SPAM act indemnify the ISPs.The ISP was not hosting the material .
Jamie was hosting the material .
Good enough reason for you ? Or , are you suggesting that ISPs be held accountable for the information on their customer 's computers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they sue the Internet companies for hosting the material and facilitating illegal copying.
Instead of suing end users, grannies and dead people?
Or did the CAN-SPAM act indemnify the ISPs.The ISP was not hosting the material.
Jamie was hosting the material.
Good enough reason for you?Or, are you suggesting that ISPs be held accountable for the information on their customer's computers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364095</id>
	<title>If I get a letter from the RIAA</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1245265740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first thing I am going to do is copy all my real documents to an external drive. Then take the internal drive from my computer and throw it off a bridge in the middle of the night. Let the chips fall where them may. I know "IP logs" and all that, but with no HD to search.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first thing I am going to do is copy all my real documents to an external drive .
Then take the internal drive from my computer and throw it off a bridge in the middle of the night .
Let the chips fall where them may .
I know " IP logs " and all that , but with no HD to search.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first thing I am going to do is copy all my real documents to an external drive.
Then take the internal drive from my computer and throw it off a bridge in the middle of the night.
Let the chips fall where them may.
I know "IP logs" and all that, but with no HD to search.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727</id>
	<title>innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>\_14k4</author>
	<datestamp>1245254700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and "prove" her innocence?  Nobody is forced to prove innocence.  The RIAA should be given the challenge, without her hard drive, of proving guilt.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/shrug (IE: external records, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and " prove " her innocence ?
Nobody is forced to prove innocence .
The RIAA should be given the challenge , without her hard drive , of proving guilt .
/shrug ( IE : external records , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and "prove" her innocence?
Nobody is forced to prove innocence.
The RIAA should be given the challenge, without her hard drive, of proving guilt.
/shrug (IE: external records, etc.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362303</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, I'm actually rooting for the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, actually, though I hate to admit it.</p><p>BUT - the more serious issue is not the guilt, but the punishment.  Chances are she's going to be hit with some kind of multi-hundred-thousand dollar penalty for the file sharing, before lawyers' fees.  Is that really justice?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , actually , though I hate to admit it.BUT - the more serious issue is not the guilt , but the punishment .
Chances are she 's going to be hit with some kind of multi-hundred-thousand dollar penalty for the file sharing , before lawyers ' fees .
Is that really justice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, actually, though I hate to admit it.BUT - the more serious issue is not the guilt, but the punishment.
Chances are she's going to be hit with some kind of multi-hundred-thousand dollar penalty for the file sharing, before lawyers' fees.
Is that really justice?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362053</id>
	<title>Replacement hard disk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA: "Why was Thomas-Rasset's password-protected computer running KaZaA in February 2005, and with the "tereastarr" name, if she had not set up the software? And since no one else had the password, and since her kids were young and had a computer account of their own anyway, who might possibly have used a machine in her bedroom to share thousands of songs without her knowledge?"</p><p>Doesn't the replacement HD cut both ways.  If the drive was replaced (assuming no recovery) how can we be know her "tereastarr" account on the original drive was password protected, or that her kids had their own account.</p><p>Maybe she wised up on her new install.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " Why was Thomas-Rasset 's password-protected computer running KaZaA in February 2005 , and with the " tereastarr " name , if she had not set up the software ?
And since no one else had the password , and since her kids were young and had a computer account of their own anyway , who might possibly have used a machine in her bedroom to share thousands of songs without her knowledge ?
" Does n't the replacement HD cut both ways .
If the drive was replaced ( assuming no recovery ) how can we be know her " tereastarr " account on the original drive was password protected , or that her kids had their own account.Maybe she wised up on her new install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: "Why was Thomas-Rasset's password-protected computer running KaZaA in February 2005, and with the "tereastarr" name, if she had not set up the software?
And since no one else had the password, and since her kids were young and had a computer account of their own anyway, who might possibly have used a machine in her bedroom to share thousands of songs without her knowledge?
"Doesn't the replacement HD cut both ways.
If the drive was replaced (assuming no recovery) how can we be know her "tereastarr" account on the original drive was password protected, or that her kids had their own account.Maybe she wised up on her new install.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362383</id>
	<title>Did she profit from any of this infringement?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  So why is the RIAA able to pursue this crap in the first place?  *sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
So why is the RIAA able to pursue this crap in the first place ?
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
So why is the RIAA able to pursue this crap in the first place?
*sigh*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362165</id>
	<title>What is Thomas' Endgame?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this case, a guilty verdict isn't at all a bad thing, if the damages are reasonable. If damages of $200,000 or more are awarded, then the RIAA strategy is validated. They prove that they can win, and that they can win significant damages. It would also give credence to their "Settle or we'll sue for all your money" letters, as an award of that scale could easily wipe anyone out, house and all.<br> <br>

For Thomas, the endgame is the reverse. I'm not at all sure she can show that she is innocent, given her testimony - which is a shame, but not unexpected. Her goal must be to somehow limit the damages to a reasonable amount. Doing so sets precedent - if the RIAA can expect only a few thousand for a case that goes to trial, then it ceases to be profitable for them to try. The settlements will become more affordable, or may go away - why spend $1,000 on an attorney to get a $500 settlement back? <br> <br>

Were I in Thomas's place, I would be far more worried about the Perjury thing, which is an actual criminal offense. She said one thing under oath, and then said another thing under oath, and the statements are not compatible. So, we're in a position where she might win the trial (or get reduced and affordable damages), but end up in jail with a massive fine for lying under oath. Not good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , a guilty verdict is n't at all a bad thing , if the damages are reasonable .
If damages of $ 200,000 or more are awarded , then the RIAA strategy is validated .
They prove that they can win , and that they can win significant damages .
It would also give credence to their " Settle or we 'll sue for all your money " letters , as an award of that scale could easily wipe anyone out , house and all .
For Thomas , the endgame is the reverse .
I 'm not at all sure she can show that she is innocent , given her testimony - which is a shame , but not unexpected .
Her goal must be to somehow limit the damages to a reasonable amount .
Doing so sets precedent - if the RIAA can expect only a few thousand for a case that goes to trial , then it ceases to be profitable for them to try .
The settlements will become more affordable , or may go away - why spend $ 1,000 on an attorney to get a $ 500 settlement back ?
Were I in Thomas 's place , I would be far more worried about the Perjury thing , which is an actual criminal offense .
She said one thing under oath , and then said another thing under oath , and the statements are not compatible .
So , we 're in a position where she might win the trial ( or get reduced and affordable damages ) , but end up in jail with a massive fine for lying under oath .
Not good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, a guilty verdict isn't at all a bad thing, if the damages are reasonable.
If damages of $200,000 or more are awarded, then the RIAA strategy is validated.
They prove that they can win, and that they can win significant damages.
It would also give credence to their "Settle or we'll sue for all your money" letters, as an award of that scale could easily wipe anyone out, house and all.
For Thomas, the endgame is the reverse.
I'm not at all sure she can show that she is innocent, given her testimony - which is a shame, but not unexpected.
Her goal must be to somehow limit the damages to a reasonable amount.
Doing so sets precedent - if the RIAA can expect only a few thousand for a case that goes to trial, then it ceases to be profitable for them to try.
The settlements will become more affordable, or may go away - why spend $1,000 on an attorney to get a $500 settlement back?
Were I in Thomas's place, I would be far more worried about the Perjury thing, which is an actual criminal offense.
She said one thing under oath, and then said another thing under oath, and the statements are not compatible.
So, we're in a position where she might win the trial (or get reduced and affordable damages), but end up in jail with a massive fine for lying under oath.
Not good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361887</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245255480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and "prove" her innocence? Nobody is forced to prove innocence. The RIAA should be given the challenge, without her hard drive, of proving guilt.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/shrug (IE: external records, etc.)</i>
</p><p>First, this isn't a criminal trial.  It's civil, so there's no concept of "innocence."  So they only have to show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she committed the acts in question.  The burden of proof still lies with the plaintiff, but to show a preponderance of evidence, they still need *access* to the evidence.
</p><p>RIAA shenanigans aside, this is how the justice system basically works: if you have some evidence, the judge will let you request other evidence that may be related to help make your case.  Here, given the fact that an IP address linked to her was observed engaging in possibly illegal behavior, it's reasonable to request access to the hard drive to determine whether her computer was involved.  Most people (and probably any judge) would see that as reasonable.  On the other hand, if they requested a search of her car (for instance), that would probably get tossed because it's unlikely to be relevant.
</p><p>What you're basically suggesting is that search warrants and discovery be made illegal.  If that happened, lots of extremely illegal behavior would be impossible to prove.  Enron comes to mind initially.
</p><p>As always, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one in my mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and " prove " her innocence ?
Nobody is forced to prove innocence .
The RIAA should be given the challenge , without her hard drive , of proving guilt .
/shrug ( IE : external records , etc .
) First , this is n't a criminal trial .
It 's civil , so there 's no concept of " innocence .
" So they only have to show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she committed the acts in question .
The burden of proof still lies with the plaintiff , but to show a preponderance of evidence , they still need * access * to the evidence .
RIAA shenanigans aside , this is how the justice system basically works : if you have some evidence , the judge will let you request other evidence that may be related to help make your case .
Here , given the fact that an IP address linked to her was observed engaging in possibly illegal behavior , it 's reasonable to request access to the hard drive to determine whether her computer was involved .
Most people ( and probably any judge ) would see that as reasonable .
On the other hand , if they requested a search of her car ( for instance ) , that would probably get tossed because it 's unlikely to be relevant .
What you 're basically suggesting is that search warrants and discovery be made illegal .
If that happened , lots of extremely illegal behavior would be impossible to prove .
Enron comes to mind initially .
As always , I 'm not a lawyer , I just play one in my mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and "prove" her innocence?
Nobody is forced to prove innocence.
The RIAA should be given the challenge, without her hard drive, of proving guilt.
/shrug (IE: external records, etc.
)
First, this isn't a criminal trial.
It's civil, so there's no concept of "innocence.
"  So they only have to show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she committed the acts in question.
The burden of proof still lies with the plaintiff, but to show a preponderance of evidence, they still need *access* to the evidence.
RIAA shenanigans aside, this is how the justice system basically works: if you have some evidence, the judge will let you request other evidence that may be related to help make your case.
Here, given the fact that an IP address linked to her was observed engaging in possibly illegal behavior, it's reasonable to request access to the hard drive to determine whether her computer was involved.
Most people (and probably any judge) would see that as reasonable.
On the other hand, if they requested a search of her car (for instance), that would probably get tossed because it's unlikely to be relevant.
What you're basically suggesting is that search warrants and discovery be made illegal.
If that happened, lots of extremely illegal behavior would be impossible to prove.
Enron comes to mind initially.
As always, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one in my mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362939</id>
	<title>Re:If I steal a CD from Walmart...</title>
	<author>hardwarejunkie9</author>
	<datestamp>1245260640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sadly, legal logic doesn't always follow would would be a sensible point. In this case what's being tried isn't the CRIMINAL act of stealing a cd, which gets legal protections on excessive punishment, but a civil case in which the idea of damages is so inflated. So instead of being tried for stealing music, she's being tried for the damage she did by her method of stealing it. I agree with you, but this is fully a three-ring-circus at the moment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , legal logic does n't always follow would would be a sensible point .
In this case what 's being tried is n't the CRIMINAL act of stealing a cd , which gets legal protections on excessive punishment , but a civil case in which the idea of damages is so inflated .
So instead of being tried for stealing music , she 's being tried for the damage she did by her method of stealing it .
I agree with you , but this is fully a three-ring-circus at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, legal logic doesn't always follow would would be a sensible point.
In this case what's being tried isn't the CRIMINAL act of stealing a cd, which gets legal protections on excessive punishment, but a civil case in which the idea of damages is so inflated.
So instead of being tried for stealing music, she's being tried for the damage she did by her method of stealing it.
I agree with you, but this is fully a three-ring-circus at the moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362613</id>
	<title>Re:Did she profit from any of this infringement?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245259020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that I approve of the RIAA, but the amount of profit you make is irrelevant to the damages suffered by the victim. So stealing $1000 is not less bad if you burn all the money right after.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I approve of the RIAA , but the amount of profit you make is irrelevant to the damages suffered by the victim .
So stealing $ 1000 is not less bad if you burn all the money right after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I approve of the RIAA, but the amount of profit you make is irrelevant to the damages suffered by the victim.
So stealing $1000 is not less bad if you burn all the money right after.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362051</id>
	<title>This will be argued to symantics</title>
	<author>DontLickJesus</author>
	<datestamp>1245256320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The HD manufacturing date could be argued out. Those understanding HD recovery also understand that there are scenarios where she could meet her legal requirements and provide a different drive, or she could have been giving the failure date, not the replacement date. We must also take into consideration that a) maybe she isn't the one who swapped it and b) this is a sticker, not digital info from the drive.<br>
<br>
All that aside I agree she has her work cut out for her. On firs tread it seems both sides may be pushing the law a bit. I do have a couple questions though:<br>
<br>
Has the question of which Kazaa client was installed been answered? There were malware versions of the client, so I would assume these would need to be ruled out.<br>
<br>
Has the possibility of the Windows XP "at hack" been resolved? I know this is a real stretch, but those understanding this fairly simple exploit could get around her password. If the computer had been exploited in anyway, it's completely reasonable that the username on Kazaa would match the machine username.<br>
<br>
It is obvious the RIAA has set out to make an example of Thomas. If she's guilty then it's understandable that they had to choose -someone-.  However, Americans have proven our disregard for our credit scores. All this will prove is that they can hold a big slot on your report, and my assumption is most creditors would begin to glance over them like medical debts if the RIAA makes them common.<br>
<br>
-rant over-</htmltext>
<tokenext>The HD manufacturing date could be argued out .
Those understanding HD recovery also understand that there are scenarios where she could meet her legal requirements and provide a different drive , or she could have been giving the failure date , not the replacement date .
We must also take into consideration that a ) maybe she is n't the one who swapped it and b ) this is a sticker , not digital info from the drive .
All that aside I agree she has her work cut out for her .
On firs tread it seems both sides may be pushing the law a bit .
I do have a couple questions though : Has the question of which Kazaa client was installed been answered ?
There were malware versions of the client , so I would assume these would need to be ruled out .
Has the possibility of the Windows XP " at hack " been resolved ?
I know this is a real stretch , but those understanding this fairly simple exploit could get around her password .
If the computer had been exploited in anyway , it 's completely reasonable that the username on Kazaa would match the machine username .
It is obvious the RIAA has set out to make an example of Thomas .
If she 's guilty then it 's understandable that they had to choose -someone- .
However , Americans have proven our disregard for our credit scores .
All this will prove is that they can hold a big slot on your report , and my assumption is most creditors would begin to glance over them like medical debts if the RIAA makes them common .
-rant over-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HD manufacturing date could be argued out.
Those understanding HD recovery also understand that there are scenarios where she could meet her legal requirements and provide a different drive, or she could have been giving the failure date, not the replacement date.
We must also take into consideration that a) maybe she isn't the one who swapped it and b) this is a sticker, not digital info from the drive.
All that aside I agree she has her work cut out for her.
On firs tread it seems both sides may be pushing the law a bit.
I do have a couple questions though:

Has the question of which Kazaa client was installed been answered?
There were malware versions of the client, so I would assume these would need to be ruled out.
Has the possibility of the Windows XP "at hack" been resolved?
I know this is a real stretch, but those understanding this fairly simple exploit could get around her password.
If the computer had been exploited in anyway, it's completely reasonable that the username on Kazaa would match the machine username.
It is obvious the RIAA has set out to make an example of Thomas.
If she's guilty then it's understandable that they had to choose -someone-.
However, Americans have proven our disregard for our credit scores.
All this will prove is that they can hold a big slot on your report, and my assumption is most creditors would begin to glance over them like medical debts if the RIAA makes them common.
-rant over-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362717</id>
	<title>Re:This will be argued to symantics</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1245259560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>RTFA.  It's not just the one date.  It's also the fact that Best Buy KNOWS when it was replaced, and it was AFTER she was informed she was being sued.  The chronology is set.  It happened in this order.  1)  (Unlicensed?) investigators find that this user account "tereastarr@KaZaA" is sharing a whole lot of music.  For some reason they think it's a good idea to PM this account through KaZaA and say "You're busted!".  2)  AFTER THAT HAPPENED her HD "Breaks" and she takes it to Best Buy for THEM to replace it.  They do so.  This is confirmed by her receipts.  3)  She says under oath and says it happened a year before the alleged infringement.  The manufacture date strongly implies this is wrong, the receipts prove beyond any doubt that this is wrong.  Did she just remember wrong?  It was Feb 2005, that's pretty close to 2004.  That alone isn't very damning.  What's damning is that the user name "tereastarr" is the same as her PCs login ID, and her e-mail address.  And right after they told this account it was being sued, she had her HD replaced and the original destroyed.  "A hacker broke into my XP box and installed KaZaA and used it to share songs, and they used my own username to frame me, then by sheer coincidence when my PC got messaged I was being sued, which I didn't notice, my HD broke seconds later and I had to replace the drive, and since I didn't even get the message there was no need for me to remember exactly when it happened relative to the alleged infringement" doesn't strike me even as reasonable doubt, and you don't even need that much for a civil case!</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .
It 's not just the one date .
It 's also the fact that Best Buy KNOWS when it was replaced , and it was AFTER she was informed she was being sued .
The chronology is set .
It happened in this order .
1 ) ( Unlicensed ?
) investigators find that this user account " tereastarr @ KaZaA " is sharing a whole lot of music .
For some reason they think it 's a good idea to PM this account through KaZaA and say " You 're busted ! " .
2 ) AFTER THAT HAPPENED her HD " Breaks " and she takes it to Best Buy for THEM to replace it .
They do so .
This is confirmed by her receipts .
3 ) She says under oath and says it happened a year before the alleged infringement .
The manufacture date strongly implies this is wrong , the receipts prove beyond any doubt that this is wrong .
Did she just remember wrong ?
It was Feb 2005 , that 's pretty close to 2004 .
That alone is n't very damning .
What 's damning is that the user name " tereastarr " is the same as her PCs login ID , and her e-mail address .
And right after they told this account it was being sued , she had her HD replaced and the original destroyed .
" A hacker broke into my XP box and installed KaZaA and used it to share songs , and they used my own username to frame me , then by sheer coincidence when my PC got messaged I was being sued , which I did n't notice , my HD broke seconds later and I had to replace the drive , and since I did n't even get the message there was no need for me to remember exactly when it happened relative to the alleged infringement " does n't strike me even as reasonable doubt , and you do n't even need that much for a civil case !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.
It's not just the one date.
It's also the fact that Best Buy KNOWS when it was replaced, and it was AFTER she was informed she was being sued.
The chronology is set.
It happened in this order.
1)  (Unlicensed?
) investigators find that this user account "tereastarr@KaZaA" is sharing a whole lot of music.
For some reason they think it's a good idea to PM this account through KaZaA and say "You're busted!".
2)  AFTER THAT HAPPENED her HD "Breaks" and she takes it to Best Buy for THEM to replace it.
They do so.
This is confirmed by her receipts.
3)  She says under oath and says it happened a year before the alleged infringement.
The manufacture date strongly implies this is wrong, the receipts prove beyond any doubt that this is wrong.
Did she just remember wrong?
It was Feb 2005, that's pretty close to 2004.
That alone isn't very damning.
What's damning is that the user name "tereastarr" is the same as her PCs login ID, and her e-mail address.
And right after they told this account it was being sued, she had her HD replaced and the original destroyed.
"A hacker broke into my XP box and installed KaZaA and used it to share songs, and they used my own username to frame me, then by sheer coincidence when my PC got messaged I was being sued, which I didn't notice, my HD broke seconds later and I had to replace the drive, and since I didn't even get the message there was no need for me to remember exactly when it happened relative to the alleged infringement" doesn't strike me even as reasonable doubt, and you don't even need that much for a civil case!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362987</id>
	<title>Re:If I steal a CD from Walmart...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245260820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you, however, stole several thousand CD's from Wal Mart, that could potentially become a felony (depending on the total dollar value of the theft), and would carry with it much more serious punishment (including a substantial fine most likely) then the theft of one CD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you , however , stole several thousand CD 's from Wal Mart , that could potentially become a felony ( depending on the total dollar value of the theft ) , and would carry with it much more serious punishment ( including a substantial fine most likely ) then the theft of one CD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you, however, stole several thousand CD's from Wal Mart, that could potentially become a felony (depending on the total dollar value of the theft), and would carry with it much more serious punishment (including a substantial fine most likely) then the theft of one CD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362113</id>
	<title>Wow, I'm actually rooting for the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've ever worked with the Evil Poor, the first thing out of their mouth is a denial, even when you're not accusing them of anything.  It seems that Jammie here would screech "Oh no you DID-UN'T" (snap, snap) if you so much as asked her the time.

</p><p>Look, the woman did what the RIAA said she did.  She knows it, the RIAA know it, we know it, the lawyers know it, even the judge must be tired of hearing the dissembling by now.  At this point it's just turned into a game of who's got the most stamina, and I reckon Jammie and "Kiwi" can spout "Nuh-HUH" from now until Doomsday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've ever worked with the Evil Poor , the first thing out of their mouth is a denial , even when you 're not accusing them of anything .
It seems that Jammie here would screech " Oh no you DID-U N'T " ( snap , snap ) if you so much as asked her the time .
Look , the woman did what the RIAA said she did .
She knows it , the RIAA know it , we know it , the lawyers know it , even the judge must be tired of hearing the dissembling by now .
At this point it 's just turned into a game of who 's got the most stamina , and I reckon Jammie and " Kiwi " can spout " Nuh-HUH " from now until Doomsday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've ever worked with the Evil Poor, the first thing out of their mouth is a denial, even when you're not accusing them of anything.
It seems that Jammie here would screech "Oh no you DID-UN'T" (snap, snap) if you so much as asked her the time.
Look, the woman did what the RIAA said she did.
She knows it, the RIAA know it, we know it, the lawyers know it, even the judge must be tired of hearing the dissembling by now.
At this point it's just turned into a game of who's got the most stamina, and I reckon Jammie and "Kiwi" can spout "Nuh-HUH" from now until Doomsday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362829</id>
	<title>If I steal a CD from Walmart...</title>
	<author>BlueKitties</author>
	<datestamp>1245260100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>(Assuming a first time offense) At worst, I'll probably spend a few months on probation and lose about $1,000 in legal fees/fines. If I download the same CD online (which, for the record, didn't cost the record company shiping or a CD) I'll get slammed with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. I don't care if she's guilty -- she shouldn't suffer any more than someone who stole the same music off a store shelf.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Assuming a first time offense ) At worst , I 'll probably spend a few months on probation and lose about $ 1,000 in legal fees/fines .
If I download the same CD online ( which , for the record , did n't cost the record company shiping or a CD ) I 'll get slammed with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines .
I do n't care if she 's guilty -- she should n't suffer any more than someone who stole the same music off a store shelf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Assuming a first time offense) At worst, I'll probably spend a few months on probation and lose about $1,000 in legal fees/fines.
If I download the same CD online (which, for the record, didn't cost the record company shiping or a CD) I'll get slammed with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
I don't care if she's guilty -- she shouldn't suffer any more than someone who stole the same music off a store shelf.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28365491</id>
	<title>BFD</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1245229200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The RIAA had its own troubles, almost losing all evidence from a particular witness when they added an additional log file to evidence without the defense being notified of it.</p></div></blockquote><p>
BFD! The RIAA got away with a tiny slap on their pinkie finger, nothing more.<br> <br>Despite the fact that the RIAA admitted from the very beginning opening statement that they will not and cannot show any "distribution" to anyone but their own paid investigator; that having music files on your own computer of CD's you own isn't illegal regardless of how you got them; that the Defendant has the CD's of all the songs in question; that the copyright registrations being used in the trial are of questionable validity for this purpose, if not fraudulently obtained in the first place; that any "evidence" that they found on her hard drive was the result of an outrageous fishing expedition; and that there are no actual damages and that their statutory damages are unconstitutional -- this court, and the entire legal system in general, seems bound and determined to find some way to give the RIAA absolutely everything they want to prop up their buggy whip business model!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA had its own troubles , almost losing all evidence from a particular witness when they added an additional log file to evidence without the defense being notified of it .
BFD ! The RIAA got away with a tiny slap on their pinkie finger , nothing more .
Despite the fact that the RIAA admitted from the very beginning opening statement that they will not and can not show any " distribution " to anyone but their own paid investigator ; that having music files on your own computer of CD 's you own is n't illegal regardless of how you got them ; that the Defendant has the CD 's of all the songs in question ; that the copyright registrations being used in the trial are of questionable validity for this purpose , if not fraudulently obtained in the first place ; that any " evidence " that they found on her hard drive was the result of an outrageous fishing expedition ; and that there are no actual damages and that their statutory damages are unconstitutional -- this court , and the entire legal system in general , seems bound and determined to find some way to give the RIAA absolutely everything they want to prop up their buggy whip business model !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA had its own troubles, almost losing all evidence from a particular witness when they added an additional log file to evidence without the defense being notified of it.
BFD! The RIAA got away with a tiny slap on their pinkie finger, nothing more.
Despite the fact that the RIAA admitted from the very beginning opening statement that they will not and cannot show any "distribution" to anyone but their own paid investigator; that having music files on your own computer of CD's you own isn't illegal regardless of how you got them; that the Defendant has the CD's of all the songs in question; that the copyright registrations being used in the trial are of questionable validity for this purpose, if not fraudulently obtained in the first place; that any "evidence" that they found on her hard drive was the result of an outrageous fishing expedition; and that there are no actual damages and that their statutory damages are unconstitutional -- this court, and the entire legal system in general, seems bound and determined to find some way to give the RIAA absolutely everything they want to prop up their buggy whip business model!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364965</id>
	<title>Re:Did she profit from any of this infringement?</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1245269880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if you photocopy $1000, leaving the original money right where it was, then burn the copy, the damages suffered by the victim are close to nil...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if you photocopy $ 1000 , leaving the original money right where it was , then burn the copy , the damages suffered by the victim are close to nil.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if you photocopy $1000, leaving the original money right where it was, then burn the copy, the damages suffered by the victim are close to nil...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362421</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1245258120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still, accuser bears the burden of proof. Unless something change there as well when I wasn't looking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still , accuser bears the burden of proof .
Unless something change there as well when I was n't looking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still, accuser bears the burden of proof.
Unless something change there as well when I wasn't looking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363607</id>
	<title>Re:why don't the RIAA sue the ISPs</title>
	<author>Shagg</author>
	<datestamp>1245263700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are suing the end users who are hosting the material.  The Internet companies have nothing to do with it, other than passing the traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are suing the end users who are hosting the material .
The Internet companies have nothing to do with it , other than passing the traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are suing the end users who are hosting the material.
The Internet companies have nothing to do with it, other than passing the traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361811</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>soulsteal</author>
	<datestamp>1245255120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to criminal cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a civil proceeding , not a criminal one .
" Innocent until proven guilty " only applies to criminal cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one.
"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to criminal cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364319</id>
	<title>Darwinianism?</title>
	<author>agent420</author>
	<datestamp>1245267120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there any relationship to the RIAA's decision to go after stupid folks using Kazaa and eDonkey vs many of the other folks with exponentially more material gathered from other 'questionable sources' on the web that might require more 'web savvy'?  Seems natural that preditors would target the slow and stupid first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any relationship to the RIAA 's decision to go after stupid folks using Kazaa and eDonkey vs many of the other folks with exponentially more material gathered from other 'questionable sources ' on the web that might require more 'web savvy ' ?
Seems natural that preditors would target the slow and stupid first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any relationship to the RIAA's decision to go after stupid folks using Kazaa and eDonkey vs many of the other folks with exponentially more material gathered from other 'questionable sources' on the web that might require more 'web savvy'?
Seems natural that preditors would target the slow and stupid first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364659</id>
	<title>Re:Replacement hard disk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245268560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking as a former warranty tech, customers almost *never* remember when their last service was.  6 months off is pretty average.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as a former warranty tech , customers almost * never * remember when their last service was .
6 months off is pretty average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as a former warranty tech, customers almost *never* remember when their last service was.
6 months off is pretty average.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28367789</id>
	<title>Next question please.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1245242160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If I download the same CD online I'll get slammed with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.</i> </p><p>You stole one disk from WalMart, retail value $20.</p><p>You uploaded one disk to 15,000,000 of your closest friends on the P2P nets. Retail value $1 <b>a track</b> through iTunes.</p><p>You did it for the bragging rights or the meet some arbritrary upload/download ratio on your P2P net.</p><p><i>Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians.</i> ain't gonna cut it.</p><p> The goods have to be factory-fresh.</p><p>If you think it worth arguing that the download isn't still in your shared files folder, go ahead.</p><p> But, if you benefit from a crime, you share responsibility for the damages which flow from that crime.</p><p>In for a penny, in for a pound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I download the same CD online I 'll get slammed with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines .
You stole one disk from WalMart , retail value $ 20.You uploaded one disk to 15,000,000 of your closest friends on the P2P nets .
Retail value $ 1 a track through iTunes.You did it for the bragging rights or the meet some arbritrary upload/download ratio on your P2P net.Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians .
ai n't gon na cut it .
The goods have to be factory-fresh.If you think it worth arguing that the download is n't still in your shared files folder , go ahead .
But , if you benefit from a crime , you share responsibility for the damages which flow from that crime.In for a penny , in for a pound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I download the same CD online I'll get slammed with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
You stole one disk from WalMart, retail value $20.You uploaded one disk to 15,000,000 of your closest friends on the P2P nets.
Retail value $1 a track through iTunes.You did it for the bragging rights or the meet some arbritrary upload/download ratio on your P2P net.Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians.
ain't gonna cut it.
The goods have to be factory-fresh.If you think it worth arguing that the download isn't still in your shared files folder, go ahead.
But, if you benefit from a crime, you share responsibility for the damages which flow from that crime.In for a penny, in for a pound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361801</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245255060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry,   "innocent until proven guilty"  only applies to criminal cases, not civil cases</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , " innocent until proven guilty " only applies to criminal cases , not civil cases</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry,   "innocent until proven guilty"  only applies to criminal cases, not civil cases</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364635</id>
	<title>Re:If I steal a CD from Walmart...</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1245268440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But if I stole thousands of Britney Spears CDs from WalMart and destroyed them, shouldn't I get a Congressional Medal or something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if I stole thousands of Britney Spears CDs from WalMart and destroyed them , should n't I get a Congressional Medal or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if I stole thousands of Britney Spears CDs from WalMart and destroyed them, shouldn't I get a Congressional Medal or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362263</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, this is a civil trial.</p><p>There was no "grand jury".</p><p>The RIAA (not the "state") sued Thomas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is a civil trial.There was no " grand jury " .The RIAA ( not the " state " ) sued Thomas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is a civil trial.There was no "grand jury".The RIAA (not the "state") sued Thomas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364057</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245265500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, it no longer applies to criminal cases either in this country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , it no longer applies to criminal cases either in this country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, it no longer applies to criminal cases either in this country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362351</id>
	<title>Re:why don't the RIAA sue the ISPs</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1245257760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe there's been multiple rulings that ISPs are not responsible for the data that flows through their servers, so long as they're not personally hosting it. Even then, it's damned hard to do anything if they ARE hosting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe there 's been multiple rulings that ISPs are not responsible for the data that flows through their servers , so long as they 're not personally hosting it .
Even then , it 's damned hard to do anything if they ARE hosting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe there's been multiple rulings that ISPs are not responsible for the data that flows through their servers, so long as they're not personally hosting it.
Even then, it's damned hard to do anything if they ARE hosting it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363391</id>
	<title>Buyer's log...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1245262800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If anything, the list looked like a buyer's log of someone who was in fact getting music for free but was still buying plenty of DVDs and video games.</p></div><p>My receipts would also look like a "buyer's log of someone who was in fact getting music for free but was still buying plenty of DVDs and video games" because I Don't Listen to Popular Music.  Even if I did, I Would Listen To It On The Radio.  Or maybe I would be given CDs as gifts.  In fact, maybe my Best Buy receipts wouldn't show the purchases because maybe I'd been suckered into one of those 2-cent record-club scams.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anything , the list looked like a buyer 's log of someone who was in fact getting music for free but was still buying plenty of DVDs and video games.My receipts would also look like a " buyer 's log of someone who was in fact getting music for free but was still buying plenty of DVDs and video games " because I Do n't Listen to Popular Music .
Even if I did , I Would Listen To It On The Radio .
Or maybe I would be given CDs as gifts .
In fact , maybe my Best Buy receipts would n't show the purchases because maybe I 'd been suckered into one of those 2-cent record-club scams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anything, the list looked like a buyer's log of someone who was in fact getting music for free but was still buying plenty of DVDs and video games.My receipts would also look like a "buyer's log of someone who was in fact getting music for free but was still buying plenty of DVDs and video games" because I Don't Listen to Popular Music.
Even if I did, I Would Listen To It On The Radio.
Or maybe I would be given CDs as gifts.
In fact, maybe my Best Buy receipts wouldn't show the purchases because maybe I'd been suckered into one of those 2-cent record-club scams.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362183</id>
	<title>why don't the RIAA sue the ISPs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't they sue the Internet companies for hosting the material and facilitating illegal copying. Instead of suing end users, grannies and <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa\_sues\_the\_dead/" title="theregister.co.uk">dead people</a> [theregister.co.uk]? Or did the <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Can-Spam-put-to-the-test/2010-1028\_3-6185501.html" title="cnet.com">CAN-SPAM</a> [cnet.com] act indemnify the ISPs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they sue the Internet companies for hosting the material and facilitating illegal copying .
Instead of suing end users , grannies and dead people [ theregister.co.uk ] ?
Or did the CAN-SPAM [ cnet.com ] act indemnify the ISPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they sue the Internet companies for hosting the material and facilitating illegal copying.
Instead of suing end users, grannies and dead people [theregister.co.uk]?
Or did the CAN-SPAM [cnet.com] act indemnify the ISPs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362269</id>
	<title>Merciful?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The judge mercifully only removed that new evidence from the trial. It was related to whether or not an external hard drive was ever connected to the computer."<br>
<br>
Looks from this, that you want the RIAA to win the case with last minute evidence. What side is the poster of this on?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The judge mercifully only removed that new evidence from the trial .
It was related to whether or not an external hard drive was ever connected to the computer .
" Looks from this , that you want the RIAA to win the case with last minute evidence .
What side is the poster of this on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The judge mercifully only removed that new evidence from the trial.
It was related to whether or not an external hard drive was ever connected to the computer.
"

Looks from this, that you want the RIAA to win the case with last minute evidence.
What side is the poster of this on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363525</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245263400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, in civil cases it's not guilty, not not guilty for lack of a crime, not not guilty due to lack of evidence, or not not guilty due to lack of jurisdiction until proven guilty, not guilty for lack of a crime, not guilty due to lack of evidence, or not guilty due to lack of jurisdiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , in civil cases it 's not guilty , not not guilty for lack of a crime , not not guilty due to lack of evidence , or not not guilty due to lack of jurisdiction until proven guilty , not guilty for lack of a crime , not guilty due to lack of evidence , or not guilty due to lack of jurisdiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, in civil cases it's not guilty, not not guilty for lack of a crime, not not guilty due to lack of evidence, or not not guilty due to lack of jurisdiction until proven guilty, not guilty for lack of a crime, not guilty due to lack of evidence, or not guilty due to lack of jurisdiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362307</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>zotz</author>
	<datestamp>1245257640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[ If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and "prove" her innocence? Nobody is forced to prove innocence. The RIAA should be given the challenge, without her hard drive, of proving guilt.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/shrug (IE: external records, etc.)</p><p>First, this isn't a criminal trial. It's civil, so there's no concept of "innocence." So they only have to show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she committed the acts in question. The burden of proof still lies with the plaintiff, but to show a preponderance of evidence, they still need *access* to the evidence.]</p><p>I wonder if it would make sense to require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level where statutory damages are in play. After all, if one side doesn't have to prove they were damaged, perhaps they should have to prove the other side was wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. ???</p><p>drew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and " prove " her innocence ?
Nobody is forced to prove innocence .
The RIAA should be given the challenge , without her hard drive , of proving guilt .
/shrug ( IE : external records , etc .
) First , this is n't a criminal trial .
It 's civil , so there 's no concept of " innocence .
" So they only have to show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she committed the acts in question .
The burden of proof still lies with the plaintiff , but to show a preponderance of evidence , they still need * access * to the evidence .
] I wonder if it would make sense to require the " beyond a reasonable doubt " level where statutory damages are in play .
After all , if one side does n't have to prove they were damaged , perhaps they should have to prove the other side was wrong beyond a reasonable doubt .
? ? ? drew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[ If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and "prove" her innocence?
Nobody is forced to prove innocence.
The RIAA should be given the challenge, without her hard drive, of proving guilt.
/shrug (IE: external records, etc.
)First, this isn't a criminal trial.
It's civil, so there's no concept of "innocence.
" So they only have to show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she committed the acts in question.
The burden of proof still lies with the plaintiff, but to show a preponderance of evidence, they still need *access* to the evidence.
]I wonder if it would make sense to require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level where statutory damages are in play.
After all, if one side doesn't have to prove they were damaged, perhaps they should have to prove the other side was wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.
???drew</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364041</id>
	<title>"without the defense being notified of it. "</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245265440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>without the defense being notified of it.</p></div><p>What is the standard concerning recently discovered evidence? If I were to learn, or realize, (possibly based on witness testimony) during the trial that a particular log file could be incriminating, what would be the appropriate way to enter that log file as a new piece of evidence?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>without the defense being notified of it.What is the standard concerning recently discovered evidence ?
If I were to learn , or realize , ( possibly based on witness testimony ) during the trial that a particular log file could be incriminating , what would be the appropriate way to enter that log file as a new piece of evidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>without the defense being notified of it.What is the standard concerning recently discovered evidence?
If I were to learn, or realize, (possibly based on witness testimony) during the trial that a particular log file could be incriminating, what would be the appropriate way to enter that log file as a new piece of evidence?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362251</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1245257340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does a hard drive prove, anyway?</p><p>Let's assume it is the system drive, let's furthermore assume it's Windows. Now, Windows stores the ID of every single storage medium (USB stick, external drives...) that you ever connected to the system. Should we now assume that if she has EVER plugged in such a device it's kinda-sorta-proof that she disconnected the offending drive before the trial?</p><p>Be serious. I could go to pretty much ANY halfway well used Windows PC and find out that at some point in its existance something was plugged into it. Doesn't prove jack. Likewise, the absense of offending files doesn't prove innocense either.</p><p>So unless you find exactly what you're looking for on the drive, you're in crystal-ball land. And that has no room in court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does a hard drive prove , anyway ? Let 's assume it is the system drive , let 's furthermore assume it 's Windows .
Now , Windows stores the ID of every single storage medium ( USB stick , external drives... ) that you ever connected to the system .
Should we now assume that if she has EVER plugged in such a device it 's kinda-sorta-proof that she disconnected the offending drive before the trial ? Be serious .
I could go to pretty much ANY halfway well used Windows PC and find out that at some point in its existance something was plugged into it .
Does n't prove jack .
Likewise , the absense of offending files does n't prove innocense either.So unless you find exactly what you 're looking for on the drive , you 're in crystal-ball land .
And that has no room in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does a hard drive prove, anyway?Let's assume it is the system drive, let's furthermore assume it's Windows.
Now, Windows stores the ID of every single storage medium (USB stick, external drives...) that you ever connected to the system.
Should we now assume that if she has EVER plugged in such a device it's kinda-sorta-proof that she disconnected the offending drive before the trial?Be serious.
I could go to pretty much ANY halfway well used Windows PC and find out that at some point in its existance something was plugged into it.
Doesn't prove jack.
Likewise, the absense of offending files doesn't prove innocense either.So unless you find exactly what you're looking for on the drive, you're in crystal-ball land.
And that has no room in court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363053</id>
	<title>Re:Did she profit from any of this infringement?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1245261180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No. So why is the RIAA able to pursue this crap in the first place? *sigh*</p></div><p>Because of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">David LaMacchia.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
So why is the RIAA able to pursue this crap in the first place ?
* sigh * Because of David LaMacchia .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
So why is the RIAA able to pursue this crap in the first place?
*sigh*Because of David LaMacchia.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362535</id>
	<title>Re:Merciful?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1245258660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems obvious to me that "mercifully" was used from the point of view that the judge gave a smaller penalty than he could have, the very definition of merciful. Nothing to do with which side the poster wants to win the case at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems obvious to me that " mercifully " was used from the point of view that the judge gave a smaller penalty than he could have , the very definition of merciful .
Nothing to do with which side the poster wants to win the case at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems obvious to me that "mercifully" was used from the point of view that the judge gave a smaller penalty than he could have, the very definition of merciful.
Nothing to do with which side the poster wants to win the case at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362735</id>
	<title>Re:Did she profit from any of this infringement?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245259620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because infringement is still infringement. They have the legally granted copy rights to the works and they are protecting their legally granted rights. Whether she profited from the copying is irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because infringement is still infringement .
They have the legally granted copy rights to the works and they are protecting their legally granted rights .
Whether she profited from the copying is irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because infringement is still infringement.
They have the legally granted copy rights to the works and they are protecting their legally granted rights.
Whether she profited from the copying is irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362711</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>greetings programs</author>
	<datestamp>1245259500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a civil case</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a civil case</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a civil case</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361831</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1245255180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RIAA made accusations against her, and had certain evidence against her.  Apparently a grand jury felt there was enough evidence for a case.  Theres such a thing called discovery.  Im not a lawyer and dont know the details, but it would seem that youre wishing for a type of justice system where noone is ever able to gather evidence if the defendent says "id really rather you didnt check to see if the murder weapon is located in my house, kthxbai".<br> <br>
All that aside, her innocence is highly questionable at this point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA made accusations against her , and had certain evidence against her .
Apparently a grand jury felt there was enough evidence for a case .
Theres such a thing called discovery .
Im not a lawyer and dont know the details , but it would seem that youre wishing for a type of justice system where noone is ever able to gather evidence if the defendent says " id really rather you didnt check to see if the murder weapon is located in my house , kthxbai " .
All that aside , her innocence is highly questionable at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA made accusations against her, and had certain evidence against her.
Apparently a grand jury felt there was enough evidence for a case.
Theres such a thing called discovery.
Im not a lawyer and dont know the details, but it would seem that youre wishing for a type of justice system where noone is ever able to gather evidence if the defendent says "id really rather you didnt check to see if the murder weapon is located in my house, kthxbai".
All that aside, her innocence is highly questionable at this point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362647</id>
	<title>Re:Did she profit from any of this infringement?</title>
	<author>GreatAntibob</author>
	<datestamp>1245259200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does her personal profit have to do with it?</p><p>
If a new popular book gets published (say a surprise 8th Harry Potter or something), and I print my own version and just give away copies on the street, that's still infringement, even if I don't personally profit (actually, a loss with the printing costs).  </p><p>
It doesn't matter if I've personally profited, the publishing company (and the author and other associated people) have lost money on my infringement.</p><p>
There are questions about how much the damages should be (certainly lower than what the RIAA is asking for) but IF infringement is proven, then there should be a punishment for it. </p><p>
Maybe it works differently in some other parts of the world, but that's certainly the way it works on the US and Europe.  That's the whole point of having copyright protection in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does her personal profit have to do with it ?
If a new popular book gets published ( say a surprise 8th Harry Potter or something ) , and I print my own version and just give away copies on the street , that 's still infringement , even if I do n't personally profit ( actually , a loss with the printing costs ) .
It does n't matter if I 've personally profited , the publishing company ( and the author and other associated people ) have lost money on my infringement .
There are questions about how much the damages should be ( certainly lower than what the RIAA is asking for ) but IF infringement is proven , then there should be a punishment for it .
Maybe it works differently in some other parts of the world , but that 's certainly the way it works on the US and Europe .
That 's the whole point of having copyright protection in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does her personal profit have to do with it?
If a new popular book gets published (say a surprise 8th Harry Potter or something), and I print my own version and just give away copies on the street, that's still infringement, even if I don't personally profit (actually, a loss with the printing costs).
It doesn't matter if I've personally profited, the publishing company (and the author and other associated people) have lost money on my infringement.
There are questions about how much the damages should be (certainly lower than what the RIAA is asking for) but IF infringement is proven, then there should be a punishment for it.
Maybe it works differently in some other parts of the world, but that's certainly the way it works on the US and Europe.
That's the whole point of having copyright protection in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362143</id>
	<title>Thanks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you, eldavojohn, for your more evenly balanced presentation!  I appreciate it, it's far less anti-RIAA then has been the usual on slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , eldavojohn , for your more evenly balanced presentation !
I appreciate it , it 's far less anti-RIAA then has been the usual on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you, eldavojohn, for your more evenly balanced presentation!
I appreciate it, it's far less anti-RIAA then has been the usual on slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361905</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1245255600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a lawyer, but I believe this is a normal part of evidence discovery.  One side makes an accusation ("you shared songs illegally") and tells the judge that additional evidence resides on the defendant's hard drive.  The judge, if he/she accepts the argument, can order that the defendant surrender the hard drive - usually to some neutral third-party for analysis.  The defendant can refuse but then their behavior looks suspicious and they risk angering the judge.  If you anger the judge, you can quickly find yourself in jail for contempt of court.  (It's usually a bad idea to anger the person who holds your future in their hands.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a lawyer , but I believe this is a normal part of evidence discovery .
One side makes an accusation ( " you shared songs illegally " ) and tells the judge that additional evidence resides on the defendant 's hard drive .
The judge , if he/she accepts the argument , can order that the defendant surrender the hard drive - usually to some neutral third-party for analysis .
The defendant can refuse but then their behavior looks suspicious and they risk angering the judge .
If you anger the judge , you can quickly find yourself in jail for contempt of court .
( It 's usually a bad idea to anger the person who holds your future in their hands .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a lawyer, but I believe this is a normal part of evidence discovery.
One side makes an accusation ("you shared songs illegally") and tells the judge that additional evidence resides on the defendant's hard drive.
The judge, if he/she accepts the argument, can order that the defendant surrender the hard drive - usually to some neutral third-party for analysis.
The defendant can refuse but then their behavior looks suspicious and they risk angering the judge.
If you anger the judge, you can quickly find yourself in jail for contempt of court.
(It's usually a bad idea to anger the person who holds your future in their hands.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28366167</id>
	<title>Re:innocent until proven?</title>
	<author>tignet</author>
	<datestamp>1245232740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To the best of my understanding that is not true.<br>
<br>
A civil case doesn't require a verdict to be unanimous, but the defendant is still considered innocent until found guilty <i>beyond a reasonable doubt</i>.<br>
<br>
That last part is pretty important. It means you do not have to testify on your own behalf since it's prosecution's job to prove you guilty -- not your job to prove you're not. It does not mean that your property can't be siezed and used as evidence. You do not need to be found guilty before evidence is collected (with or without your explicit permission).<br>
<br>
Having said that, you probably do want to testify (or have witnesses of your own) and collect/provide evidence on your own behalf. Any decent defense lawyer will be able to create a story that explains everything, even if it's not probable. I mean, can you <i>prove</i> that the boyfriend doesn't have a split personality and committed the crimes without consciously knowing it? Can you prove that someone didn't enter the house in the middle of the night while sleepwalking and do it? After all people have driven and had sex while sleeping, using a computer program is possible.<br>
<br>
It's difficult to prove anything beyond <i>all</i> doubt. Sure it's possible someone broken into the house and used Kazaa, but I wouldn't recommend banking your freedom on the jury considering the remote possibility of something like that happening.<br>
<br>
The public should lose the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" since it's not accurate. All the jury needs is reasonable doubt as to your innocence, that's it.<br>
<br>...And in deliberations the jury can weigh anything they want* and are not required to explain the rationale behind the decision. <i>The jury</i> determines what is fact, especially important considering that multiple witnesses will often recall different version of the same event, or different experts interpret the same evidence differently. Fact is what the jury determines to be the truth. If you wear an "I HATE JURORS" T-shirt to your trial the facts that determine the outcome may not be what you think they are.<br>
<br>
By the way, anyone that gets out of jury duty doesn't know what they're missing. I found it enormously informative and interesting.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>
<br>
*The judge will give explicit instructions on what can be considered and how it should be considered (opening statements are not to be considered fact, etc). However once behind closed doors it's a "black box" and ultimately you do not need to explain to anyone how you arrived at your decision. As such it is safe to say that juries (while generally unbiased and not having a predisposition to intentionally disobeying the judges instructions) can consider anything they want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To the best of my understanding that is not true .
A civil case does n't require a verdict to be unanimous , but the defendant is still considered innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt .
That last part is pretty important .
It means you do not have to testify on your own behalf since it 's prosecution 's job to prove you guilty -- not your job to prove you 're not .
It does not mean that your property ca n't be siezed and used as evidence .
You do not need to be found guilty before evidence is collected ( with or without your explicit permission ) .
Having said that , you probably do want to testify ( or have witnesses of your own ) and collect/provide evidence on your own behalf .
Any decent defense lawyer will be able to create a story that explains everything , even if it 's not probable .
I mean , can you prove that the boyfriend does n't have a split personality and committed the crimes without consciously knowing it ?
Can you prove that someone did n't enter the house in the middle of the night while sleepwalking and do it ?
After all people have driven and had sex while sleeping , using a computer program is possible .
It 's difficult to prove anything beyond all doubt .
Sure it 's possible someone broken into the house and used Kazaa , but I would n't recommend banking your freedom on the jury considering the remote possibility of something like that happening .
The public should lose the notion of " innocent until proven guilty " since it 's not accurate .
All the jury needs is reasonable doubt as to your innocence , that 's it .
...And in deliberations the jury can weigh anything they want * and are not required to explain the rationale behind the decision .
The jury determines what is fact , especially important considering that multiple witnesses will often recall different version of the same event , or different experts interpret the same evidence differently .
Fact is what the jury determines to be the truth .
If you wear an " I HATE JURORS " T-shirt to your trial the facts that determine the outcome may not be what you think they are .
By the way , anyone that gets out of jury duty does n't know what they 're missing .
I found it enormously informative and interesting .
: ) * The judge will give explicit instructions on what can be considered and how it should be considered ( opening statements are not to be considered fact , etc ) .
However once behind closed doors it 's a " black box " and ultimately you do not need to explain to anyone how you arrived at your decision .
As such it is safe to say that juries ( while generally unbiased and not having a predisposition to intentionally disobeying the judges instructions ) can consider anything they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the best of my understanding that is not true.
A civil case doesn't require a verdict to be unanimous, but the defendant is still considered innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
That last part is pretty important.
It means you do not have to testify on your own behalf since it's prosecution's job to prove you guilty -- not your job to prove you're not.
It does not mean that your property can't be siezed and used as evidence.
You do not need to be found guilty before evidence is collected (with or without your explicit permission).
Having said that, you probably do want to testify (or have witnesses of your own) and collect/provide evidence on your own behalf.
Any decent defense lawyer will be able to create a story that explains everything, even if it's not probable.
I mean, can you prove that the boyfriend doesn't have a split personality and committed the crimes without consciously knowing it?
Can you prove that someone didn't enter the house in the middle of the night while sleepwalking and do it?
After all people have driven and had sex while sleeping, using a computer program is possible.
It's difficult to prove anything beyond all doubt.
Sure it's possible someone broken into the house and used Kazaa, but I wouldn't recommend banking your freedom on the jury considering the remote possibility of something like that happening.
The public should lose the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" since it's not accurate.
All the jury needs is reasonable doubt as to your innocence, that's it.
...And in deliberations the jury can weigh anything they want* and are not required to explain the rationale behind the decision.
The jury determines what is fact, especially important considering that multiple witnesses will often recall different version of the same event, or different experts interpret the same evidence differently.
Fact is what the jury determines to be the truth.
If you wear an "I HATE JURORS" T-shirt to your trial the facts that determine the outcome may not be what you think they are.
By the way, anyone that gets out of jury duty doesn't know what they're missing.
I found it enormously informative and interesting.
:)

*The judge will give explicit instructions on what can be considered and how it should be considered (opening statements are not to be considered fact, etc).
However once behind closed doors it's a "black box" and ultimately you do not need to explain to anyone how you arrived at your decision.
As such it is safe to say that juries (while generally unbiased and not having a predisposition to intentionally disobeying the judges instructions) can consider anything they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361801</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28365911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28367789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1436255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28366167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1436255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362165
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1436255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1436255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1436255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28366167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28361831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362491
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1436255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1436255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1436255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1436255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1436255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1436255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28363053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1436255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28365911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1436255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28367789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28362987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1436255.28364635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
