<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_26_005225</id>
	<title>Pirate Bay Retrial Denied, Judge Declared Unbiased</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246018740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bonch writes <i>"A Swedish court has ruled that the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/pirate-bay-retrial-denied-judge-declared-unbiased.ars">judge in the PirateBay trial is unbiased</a> and there will be no retrial.  Stockholm District Court defended the judge's membership in copyright organizations as a necessity to 'keep up with developments in the field' and that merely endorsing the idea of copyright law was not grounds for a mistrial.  The defendants must now rely on the appeal process, while one defendant has written on his <a href="http://twitter.com/brokep">Twitter account</a> that the PirateBay will also be suing Sweden for human rights violations."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bonch writes " A Swedish court has ruled that the judge in the PirateBay trial is unbiased and there will be no retrial .
Stockholm District Court defended the judge 's membership in copyright organizations as a necessity to 'keep up with developments in the field ' and that merely endorsing the idea of copyright law was not grounds for a mistrial .
The defendants must now rely on the appeal process , while one defendant has written on his Twitter account that the PirateBay will also be suing Sweden for human rights violations .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bonch writes "A Swedish court has ruled that the judge in the PirateBay trial is unbiased and there will be no retrial.
Stockholm District Court defended the judge's membership in copyright organizations as a necessity to 'keep up with developments in the field' and that merely endorsing the idea of copyright law was not grounds for a mistrial.
The defendants must now rely on the appeal process, while one defendant has written on his Twitter account that the PirateBay will also be suing Sweden for human rights violations.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28485083</id>
	<title>Re:The Ruling is Complete Garbage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246040040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or they thought quite fucking reasonably that a judge who ruled on copyright law would support the law as it currently stands. The law that the electorate had voted in through the 96.9\% of them who are NOT in the pirate party...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or they thought quite fucking reasonably that a judge who ruled on copyright law would support the law as it currently stands .
The law that the electorate had voted in through the 96.9 \ % of them who are NOT in the pirate party.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or they thought quite fucking reasonably that a judge who ruled on copyright law would support the law as it currently stands.
The law that the electorate had voted in through the 96.9\% of them who are NOT in the pirate party...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475327</id>
	<title>Re:New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245936600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but what human rights are being violated?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Sounds very much like the Right to a fair trial is being violated -- which specifically is mentioned in the Council of Europe's "Convention on Human Rights" in 3.6 article 6.<br> <br>

So no, they are not being pussies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but what human rights are being violated ?
Sounds very much like the Right to a fair trial is being violated -- which specifically is mentioned in the Council of Europe 's " Convention on Human Rights " in 3.6 article 6 .
So no , they are not being pussies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but what human rights are being violated?
Sounds very much like the Right to a fair trial is being violated -- which specifically is mentioned in the Council of Europe's "Convention on Human Rights" in 3.6 article 6.
So no, they are not being pussies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476581</id>
	<title>Design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245944280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not much hypocrisy if you can really grok the genesis of the GPL. There's a reason the GPL is also known as the copy*left*. Perhaps go back and do some more research, this has been explained quite a few times here already over the years.</p><p>Here is an easy start on it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">copyleft</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>Basically, it is a very good attempt at trying to solve a lot of the problems with copyright as it has been transformed into the abomination that we have today. It's a well thought out and pretty fair compromise which seeks to give the best possible set of rules to a situation where the rules have been skewed in the direction of "perpetuity". Copyright as originally proposed was for a limited time. Taking "limited" to mean "any length of years we can bribe through congress, then some", the law itself has been compromised so that the public good-to be able to use the stuff in some sane time period, to have it enter public domain-was lost. People alive today will never get to be able to use copyrighted works as originally intended if something is copyrighted today. It has been placed beyond human life spans! That's NUTS and goes completely against the spirit of the original thinking, and even then it was *very* generous in terms of years..but NOOO, that wasn't good enough! Every time major works get close to entering public domain, wham, another huge extension and more restrictions. The GPL is a very rational way to work around those restrictions and to insure the "public good" part, so that things copyrighted under that license can actually be USED by the people and not ABUSED by some jerkoff corporation or cartel.</p><p>
 Copyright is an 100\% human political construct that is GRANTED to you by collective society, and originally for only such a time as you could try and make something from it, then it was supposed to be passed on to the public at large to benefit. We the people could make your copyright terms be three days, get it? Or zero. But..it got pushed to life plus enough for the lazy ass kids to still make loot from it, plus some corporation made up of paper work shufflers who never had a creative thought in their life. The public today gets bupkis!</p><p>
 Now..you won't be able to ever "legally" be able to take those ideas and see what else could be done from them..you'll be LONG GONE before things copyrighted today fall out of copyright. That's why copyright is broken and things like the GPL-copyleft- are necessary to try and work around those crazy law extensions that some big cartels-and I mean cartels in the fullest unethical business sense-pushed for. It's a well meaning compromise and seems to be working so far.</p><p>
 For the other, it is called a combination of civil disobedience, also a normal human response to really stupid laws (see also prohibition, etc) and a reaction to *blatant cartel price gouging* in the face of digital copies of works costing at most a small fraction of a penny to reproduce, but because of cartel pricing, are being forcefully restricted to many dollars per "lawful copy". 100,000\% markup is blatant highway robbery pure insanity price gouging, and is only "law" and "business practice" today because these cartels bribed off congress enough to get this stuff passed and to keep the feds off their backs. It's a criminal enterprise at this point, and people just don't care, they just DON'T give shit one about being less than upfront with obvious crooks. That's just human nature, now you know why there is this apparent dichotomy.</p><p>
 When content creators are a little more righteous and fair, they get treated better, when they are obvious crooks and scamsters like what is represented by the new term MAFIAA, people just don't care, because they know they are dealing with crooks anyway, so..meh. Just meh.</p><p>When the government and "law" starts busting these cartels for price manipulation and collusion (which they SHOULD and NEVER do, those laws are on the books as well, and are being blatantly ignored because of obvious</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not much hypocrisy if you can really grok the genesis of the GPL .
There 's a reason the GPL is also known as the copy * left * .
Perhaps go back and do some more research , this has been explained quite a few times here already over the years.Here is an easy start on it copyleft [ wikipedia.org ] Basically , it is a very good attempt at trying to solve a lot of the problems with copyright as it has been transformed into the abomination that we have today .
It 's a well thought out and pretty fair compromise which seeks to give the best possible set of rules to a situation where the rules have been skewed in the direction of " perpetuity " .
Copyright as originally proposed was for a limited time .
Taking " limited " to mean " any length of years we can bribe through congress , then some " , the law itself has been compromised so that the public good-to be able to use the stuff in some sane time period , to have it enter public domain-was lost .
People alive today will never get to be able to use copyrighted works as originally intended if something is copyrighted today .
It has been placed beyond human life spans !
That 's NUTS and goes completely against the spirit of the original thinking , and even then it was * very * generous in terms of years..but NOOO , that was n't good enough !
Every time major works get close to entering public domain , wham , another huge extension and more restrictions .
The GPL is a very rational way to work around those restrictions and to insure the " public good " part , so that things copyrighted under that license can actually be USED by the people and not ABUSED by some jerkoff corporation or cartel .
Copyright is an 100 \ % human political construct that is GRANTED to you by collective society , and originally for only such a time as you could try and make something from it , then it was supposed to be passed on to the public at large to benefit .
We the people could make your copyright terms be three days , get it ?
Or zero .
But..it got pushed to life plus enough for the lazy ass kids to still make loot from it , plus some corporation made up of paper work shufflers who never had a creative thought in their life .
The public today gets bupkis !
Now..you wo n't be able to ever " legally " be able to take those ideas and see what else could be done from them..you 'll be LONG GONE before things copyrighted today fall out of copyright .
That 's why copyright is broken and things like the GPL-copyleft- are necessary to try and work around those crazy law extensions that some big cartels-and I mean cartels in the fullest unethical business sense-pushed for .
It 's a well meaning compromise and seems to be working so far .
For the other , it is called a combination of civil disobedience , also a normal human response to really stupid laws ( see also prohibition , etc ) and a reaction to * blatant cartel price gouging * in the face of digital copies of works costing at most a small fraction of a penny to reproduce , but because of cartel pricing , are being forcefully restricted to many dollars per " lawful copy " .
100,000 \ % markup is blatant highway robbery pure insanity price gouging , and is only " law " and " business practice " today because these cartels bribed off congress enough to get this stuff passed and to keep the feds off their backs .
It 's a criminal enterprise at this point , and people just do n't care , they just DO N'T give shit one about being less than upfront with obvious crooks .
That 's just human nature , now you know why there is this apparent dichotomy .
When content creators are a little more righteous and fair , they get treated better , when they are obvious crooks and scamsters like what is represented by the new term MAFIAA , people just do n't care , because they know they are dealing with crooks anyway , so..meh .
Just meh.When the government and " law " starts busting these cartels for price manipulation and collusion ( which they SHOULD and NEVER do , those laws are on the books as well , and are being blatantly ignored because of obvious</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not much hypocrisy if you can really grok the genesis of the GPL.
There's a reason the GPL is also known as the copy*left*.
Perhaps go back and do some more research, this has been explained quite a few times here already over the years.Here is an easy start on it copyleft [wikipedia.org] Basically, it is a very good attempt at trying to solve a lot of the problems with copyright as it has been transformed into the abomination that we have today.
It's a well thought out and pretty fair compromise which seeks to give the best possible set of rules to a situation where the rules have been skewed in the direction of "perpetuity".
Copyright as originally proposed was for a limited time.
Taking "limited" to mean "any length of years we can bribe through congress, then some", the law itself has been compromised so that the public good-to be able to use the stuff in some sane time period, to have it enter public domain-was lost.
People alive today will never get to be able to use copyrighted works as originally intended if something is copyrighted today.
It has been placed beyond human life spans!
That's NUTS and goes completely against the spirit of the original thinking, and even then it was *very* generous in terms of years..but NOOO, that wasn't good enough!
Every time major works get close to entering public domain, wham, another huge extension and more restrictions.
The GPL is a very rational way to work around those restrictions and to insure the "public good" part, so that things copyrighted under that license can actually be USED by the people and not ABUSED by some jerkoff corporation or cartel.
Copyright is an 100\% human political construct that is GRANTED to you by collective society, and originally for only such a time as you could try and make something from it, then it was supposed to be passed on to the public at large to benefit.
We the people could make your copyright terms be three days, get it?
Or zero.
But..it got pushed to life plus enough for the lazy ass kids to still make loot from it, plus some corporation made up of paper work shufflers who never had a creative thought in their life.
The public today gets bupkis!
Now..you won't be able to ever "legally" be able to take those ideas and see what else could be done from them..you'll be LONG GONE before things copyrighted today fall out of copyright.
That's why copyright is broken and things like the GPL-copyleft- are necessary to try and work around those crazy law extensions that some big cartels-and I mean cartels in the fullest unethical business sense-pushed for.
It's a well meaning compromise and seems to be working so far.
For the other, it is called a combination of civil disobedience, also a normal human response to really stupid laws (see also prohibition, etc) and a reaction to *blatant cartel price gouging* in the face of digital copies of works costing at most a small fraction of a penny to reproduce, but because of cartel pricing, are being forcefully restricted to many dollars per "lawful copy".
100,000\% markup is blatant highway robbery pure insanity price gouging, and is only "law" and "business practice" today because these cartels bribed off congress enough to get this stuff passed and to keep the feds off their backs.
It's a criminal enterprise at this point, and people just don't care, they just DON'T give shit one about being less than upfront with obvious crooks.
That's just human nature, now you know why there is this apparent dichotomy.
When content creators are a little more righteous and fair, they get treated better, when they are obvious crooks and scamsters like what is represented by the new term MAFIAA, people just don't care, because they know they are dealing with crooks anyway, so..meh.
Just meh.When the government and "law" starts busting these cartels for price manipulation and collusion (which they SHOULD and NEVER do, those laws are on the books as well, and are being blatantly ignored because of obvious</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476325</id>
	<title>The Ruling is Complete Garbage</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1245942600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>To claim that this caused no bias is a disgrace on the Swedish judicial system.  It's hogwash.  The Litmus Test here is: If there was no bias involved then this should have been declared in the first minute of trial and allowed for any objections at that time.  To hide it through the entire trial and as best they could afterwards until the defendants were able to dig it up shrieks of the fix being in and the trial being nothing but show.  I'm left to wonder how the prosecution actually managed to keep straight faces throughout all of this since they surely had to have known.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To claim that this caused no bias is a disgrace on the Swedish judicial system .
It 's hogwash .
The Litmus Test here is : If there was no bias involved then this should have been declared in the first minute of trial and allowed for any objections at that time .
To hide it through the entire trial and as best they could afterwards until the defendants were able to dig it up shrieks of the fix being in and the trial being nothing but show .
I 'm left to wonder how the prosecution actually managed to keep straight faces throughout all of this since they surely had to have known .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To claim that this caused no bias is a disgrace on the Swedish judicial system.
It's hogwash.
The Litmus Test here is: If there was no bias involved then this should have been declared in the first minute of trial and allowed for any objections at that time.
To hide it through the entire trial and as best they could afterwards until the defendants were able to dig it up shrieks of the fix being in and the trial being nothing but show.
I'm left to wonder how the prosecution actually managed to keep straight faces throughout all of this since they surely had to have known.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476115</id>
	<title>Re:New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>madhatter256</author>
	<datestamp>1245941100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because the ruling did not rule in Pirate Bay's favor does not mean their rights were violated. That's just plain childish and goes to show piracy makes you stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because the ruling did not rule in Pirate Bay 's favor does not mean their rights were violated .
That 's just plain childish and goes to show piracy makes you stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because the ruling did not rule in Pirate Bay's favor does not mean their rights were violated.
That's just plain childish and goes to show piracy makes you stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28482049</id>
	<title>Re:clarification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>posting to undo an accidental -1 mod.</htmltext>
<tokenext>posting to undo an accidental -1 mod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>posting to undo an accidental -1 mod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475807</id>
	<title>Re:New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245939240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you saying that<br>a) they are no humans<br>b) they have no rights<br>or<br>c) you are just a dick? ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying thata ) they are no humansb ) they have no rightsorc ) you are just a dick ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying thata) they are no humansb) they have no rightsorc) you are just a dick?
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476813</id>
	<title>Re:False dichotomy</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1245946080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, you actually replied to that troll..</p><p>1. don't feed the trolls<br>2. why can't I be against one use of copyright but for another?</p><p>If I am "for" copyright, does that mean I have to like everything people do with it?  If I am "against" copyright, does that mean I have to hate everything people do with it?  Why can't I be against the selfish use of copyright to extract profit from the public but be for the selfless use of copyright create a protected public-domain-like body of work?</p><p>I'm a copyright abolitionist.. I think copyright should be completely scraped because I believe it does more harm than good, but that doesn't mean I think it does *only* harm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , you actually replied to that troll..1. do n't feed the trolls2 .
why ca n't I be against one use of copyright but for another ? If I am " for " copyright , does that mean I have to like everything people do with it ?
If I am " against " copyright , does that mean I have to hate everything people do with it ?
Why ca n't I be against the selfish use of copyright to extract profit from the public but be for the selfless use of copyright create a protected public-domain-like body of work ? I 'm a copyright abolitionist.. I think copyright should be completely scraped because I believe it does more harm than good , but that does n't mean I think it does * only * harm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, you actually replied to that troll..1. don't feed the trolls2.
why can't I be against one use of copyright but for another?If I am "for" copyright, does that mean I have to like everything people do with it?
If I am "against" copyright, does that mean I have to hate everything people do with it?
Why can't I be against the selfish use of copyright to extract profit from the public but be for the selfless use of copyright create a protected public-domain-like body of work?I'm a copyright abolitionist.. I think copyright should be completely scraped because I believe it does more harm than good, but that doesn't mean I think it does *only* harm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475873</id>
	<title>Re:New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245939600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, a "right"... What is a right? You only have that "right", because people that were stronger than your enemies decided that it would be that way. In reality, there still are no rights, and everything is based on the rule of force / law of the jungle.<br>It's just, that the psychological warfare (eg. making them believe they are weaker, and you are the boss) got way more powerful nowadays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a " right " ... What is a right ?
You only have that " right " , because people that were stronger than your enemies decided that it would be that way .
In reality , there still are no rights , and everything is based on the rule of force / law of the jungle.It 's just , that the psychological warfare ( eg .
making them believe they are weaker , and you are the boss ) got way more powerful nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a "right"... What is a right?
You only have that "right", because people that were stronger than your enemies decided that it would be that way.
In reality, there still are no rights, and everything is based on the rule of force / law of the jungle.It's just, that the psychological warfare (eg.
making them believe they are weaker, and you are the boss) got way more powerful nowadays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28479777</id>
	<title>Re:The Ruling is Complete Garbage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246016340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>put your tin foil hat away. If the judge had been a member of the FSF you would have declared that perfectly acceptable.<br>You guys insisted they would never go to trial, they did<br>You guys insisted they would never be found guilty<br>They were<br>You guys insisted there would be a re-trial. There won't be.</p><p>Face it, this went to court, they were found (quite rightfully) guilty as hell.<br>Deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>put your tin foil hat away .
If the judge had been a member of the FSF you would have declared that perfectly acceptable.You guys insisted they would never go to trial , they didYou guys insisted they would never be found guiltyThey wereYou guys insisted there would be a re-trial .
There wo n't be.Face it , this went to court , they were found ( quite rightfully ) guilty as hell.Deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>put your tin foil hat away.
If the judge had been a member of the FSF you would have declared that perfectly acceptable.You guys insisted they would never go to trial, they didYou guys insisted they would never be found guiltyThey wereYou guys insisted there would be a re-trial.
There won't be.Face it, this went to court, they were found (quite rightfully) guilty as hell.Deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481739</id>
	<title>Re:False dichotomy</title>
	<author>Anonymous Brave Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1246028940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Opposition to the current copyright regime is not synonymous with the abolition of copyright. Many of us, instead, feel that copyright needs to be reformed, not abolished:</p></div><p>An excellent post, and I agree with most of your position. I do challenge one of your points, however:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Legalize non-commercial distribution of audiovisual works.</p></div><p>The problem with this is that it doesn't scale as technology improves and viewing habits change.</p><p>For example, it will be a few years, at most, before we have the capacity for individuals to host full-quality videos to be streamed from their own sites (as opposed to using a commercial hosting service such as YouTube). This already happens to some extent via BitTorrent and the like.</p><p>Also, IME at least, people are turning quickly to using on-demand streamling from on-line sources. My other half now watches more BBC programmes via iPlayer than she watches live on TV, for example. I suspect that traditional television now has a remaining useful lifetime of only a few years, and any physical medium for distribution of content (CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, etc.) won't last much longer.</p><p>So, suppose we legalise non-commercial distribution of audiovisual works, and let's jump ahead ten years. Everyone is used to downloading content from on-line suppliers, and a handful of (now 100\% legal, run as non-profit) copy-sites have become trusted sources for new films, much as YouTube is the first place many people look for music videos today. Within minutes of a new movie being released, whatever DRM it came with is broken and a copy is placed on the copy-sites. With no legal restrictions, even most of those who would have paid for the content today rather than looking for a dubious alternative source go to the copy-site and save their money. Now the only way for movies to make money is in the cinema, but with increased specifications for home theatre systems and ready availability of full-quality content, those are dying too. Consequently, no-one can get a return on investment on movies that cost the astronomical sums they do today. But equally, no-one can get a return on investment on other works that are expensive considering the size of their target audience, whether it's genuinely ground-breaking nature documentaries like the BBC's <i>Planet Earth</i> series, or hiring a professional recording studio for a day so an indie group can make high-quality recordings to share with their fans, or putting on a big sports event.</p><p>Now, one could argue that this is market forces driving down prices: A-list celebrities from actors to sports stars are overpaid and will have to suck it up, cinemas will have to offer a significantly better experience than home theatre to entice people to show up, sports events will have to charge enough for admission to make up for not making anything on the broadcast rights, and so on. I'm sure there is some truth in this.</p><p>One could also argue that true fans would pay to support the smaller projects anyway, and an effectively donation-based model would take over some markets. Again, there is probably some truth in this.</p><p>But to me, this seems like too risky a path to go down any time soon. I think you could have a simple, reasonable, mostly-respected fair use law just by saying once you've obtained a legitimate copy of some content, you're free to use it as you wish personally and within your own household, but sharing it beyond that is an infringement. If you allow open-ended sharing, with the resulting exponential growth in distribution, I would have serious concerns about the viability of creating and distributing a lot of works that many people enjoy today. It would take longer for our society to evolve to the point where people supported such artistic work voluntarily to the extent required, just as people make charitable contributions to causes they support today, though this might be a laudable goal in the long term.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opposition to the current copyright regime is not synonymous with the abolition of copyright .
Many of us , instead , feel that copyright needs to be reformed , not abolished : An excellent post , and I agree with most of your position .
I do challenge one of your points , however : 2 .
Legalize non-commercial distribution of audiovisual works.The problem with this is that it does n't scale as technology improves and viewing habits change.For example , it will be a few years , at most , before we have the capacity for individuals to host full-quality videos to be streamed from their own sites ( as opposed to using a commercial hosting service such as YouTube ) .
This already happens to some extent via BitTorrent and the like.Also , IME at least , people are turning quickly to using on-demand streamling from on-line sources .
My other half now watches more BBC programmes via iPlayer than she watches live on TV , for example .
I suspect that traditional television now has a remaining useful lifetime of only a few years , and any physical medium for distribution of content ( CD , DVD , Blu-Ray , etc .
) wo n't last much longer.So , suppose we legalise non-commercial distribution of audiovisual works , and let 's jump ahead ten years .
Everyone is used to downloading content from on-line suppliers , and a handful of ( now 100 \ % legal , run as non-profit ) copy-sites have become trusted sources for new films , much as YouTube is the first place many people look for music videos today .
Within minutes of a new movie being released , whatever DRM it came with is broken and a copy is placed on the copy-sites .
With no legal restrictions , even most of those who would have paid for the content today rather than looking for a dubious alternative source go to the copy-site and save their money .
Now the only way for movies to make money is in the cinema , but with increased specifications for home theatre systems and ready availability of full-quality content , those are dying too .
Consequently , no-one can get a return on investment on movies that cost the astronomical sums they do today .
But equally , no-one can get a return on investment on other works that are expensive considering the size of their target audience , whether it 's genuinely ground-breaking nature documentaries like the BBC 's Planet Earth series , or hiring a professional recording studio for a day so an indie group can make high-quality recordings to share with their fans , or putting on a big sports event.Now , one could argue that this is market forces driving down prices : A-list celebrities from actors to sports stars are overpaid and will have to suck it up , cinemas will have to offer a significantly better experience than home theatre to entice people to show up , sports events will have to charge enough for admission to make up for not making anything on the broadcast rights , and so on .
I 'm sure there is some truth in this.One could also argue that true fans would pay to support the smaller projects anyway , and an effectively donation-based model would take over some markets .
Again , there is probably some truth in this.But to me , this seems like too risky a path to go down any time soon .
I think you could have a simple , reasonable , mostly-respected fair use law just by saying once you 've obtained a legitimate copy of some content , you 're free to use it as you wish personally and within your own household , but sharing it beyond that is an infringement .
If you allow open-ended sharing , with the resulting exponential growth in distribution , I would have serious concerns about the viability of creating and distributing a lot of works that many people enjoy today .
It would take longer for our society to evolve to the point where people supported such artistic work voluntarily to the extent required , just as people make charitable contributions to causes they support today , though this might be a laudable goal in the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opposition to the current copyright regime is not synonymous with the abolition of copyright.
Many of us, instead, feel that copyright needs to be reformed, not abolished:An excellent post, and I agree with most of your position.
I do challenge one of your points, however:2.
Legalize non-commercial distribution of audiovisual works.The problem with this is that it doesn't scale as technology improves and viewing habits change.For example, it will be a few years, at most, before we have the capacity for individuals to host full-quality videos to be streamed from their own sites (as opposed to using a commercial hosting service such as YouTube).
This already happens to some extent via BitTorrent and the like.Also, IME at least, people are turning quickly to using on-demand streamling from on-line sources.
My other half now watches more BBC programmes via iPlayer than she watches live on TV, for example.
I suspect that traditional television now has a remaining useful lifetime of only a few years, and any physical medium for distribution of content (CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, etc.
) won't last much longer.So, suppose we legalise non-commercial distribution of audiovisual works, and let's jump ahead ten years.
Everyone is used to downloading content from on-line suppliers, and a handful of (now 100\% legal, run as non-profit) copy-sites have become trusted sources for new films, much as YouTube is the first place many people look for music videos today.
Within minutes of a new movie being released, whatever DRM it came with is broken and a copy is placed on the copy-sites.
With no legal restrictions, even most of those who would have paid for the content today rather than looking for a dubious alternative source go to the copy-site and save their money.
Now the only way for movies to make money is in the cinema, but with increased specifications for home theatre systems and ready availability of full-quality content, those are dying too.
Consequently, no-one can get a return on investment on movies that cost the astronomical sums they do today.
But equally, no-one can get a return on investment on other works that are expensive considering the size of their target audience, whether it's genuinely ground-breaking nature documentaries like the BBC's Planet Earth series, or hiring a professional recording studio for a day so an indie group can make high-quality recordings to share with their fans, or putting on a big sports event.Now, one could argue that this is market forces driving down prices: A-list celebrities from actors to sports stars are overpaid and will have to suck it up, cinemas will have to offer a significantly better experience than home theatre to entice people to show up, sports events will have to charge enough for admission to make up for not making anything on the broadcast rights, and so on.
I'm sure there is some truth in this.One could also argue that true fans would pay to support the smaller projects anyway, and an effectively donation-based model would take over some markets.
Again, there is probably some truth in this.But to me, this seems like too risky a path to go down any time soon.
I think you could have a simple, reasonable, mostly-respected fair use law just by saying once you've obtained a legitimate copy of some content, you're free to use it as you wish personally and within your own household, but sharing it beyond that is an infringement.
If you allow open-ended sharing, with the resulting exponential growth in distribution, I would have serious concerns about the viability of creating and distributing a lot of works that many people enjoy today.
It would take longer for our society to evolve to the point where people supported such artistic work voluntarily to the extent required, just as people make charitable contributions to causes they support today, though this might be a laudable goal in the long term.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481359</id>
	<title>Re:The GPL relies on copyright law</title>
	<author>MozzleyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1246027560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GPL is a compromise that is made to achieve the desired outcomes under the copyright system. It's a concession to the reality that is copyright law.</p><p>Objection to copyright law is derived from the realisation that copyright law is fundamentally incompatible with our world and our economy. Art has massive initial cost and 0 incremental cost. You can't just pretend it has an incremental cost - it cannot and will not ever work as desired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL is a compromise that is made to achieve the desired outcomes under the copyright system .
It 's a concession to the reality that is copyright law.Objection to copyright law is derived from the realisation that copyright law is fundamentally incompatible with our world and our economy .
Art has massive initial cost and 0 incremental cost .
You ca n't just pretend it has an incremental cost - it can not and will not ever work as desired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL is a compromise that is made to achieve the desired outcomes under the copyright system.
It's a concession to the reality that is copyright law.Objection to copyright law is derived from the realisation that copyright law is fundamentally incompatible with our world and our economy.
Art has massive initial cost and 0 incremental cost.
You can't just pretend it has an incremental cost - it cannot and will not ever work as desired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28479621</id>
	<title>Re:clarification</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1246014420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A tip on using this fascinating concept called common sense</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts?</p><p>Any guesses how long it will take before decisions are made?</p><p>Any guesses how long it will take before [other stuff happens]?</p></div><p>You're welcome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A tip on using this fascinating concept called common senseAny guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts ? Any guesses how long it will take before decisions are made ? Any guesses how long it will take before [ other stuff happens ] ? You 're welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A tip on using this fascinating concept called common senseAny guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts?Any guesses how long it will take before decisions are made?Any guesses how long it will take before [other stuff happens]?You're welcome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477883</id>
	<title>Re:False dichotomy</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1245955020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Artists like Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have demonstrated that the patronage model works well for music.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm not sure that they've demonstrated anything.  Radiohead's manager says they won't be repeating their stunt -- and it seems to have been exactly that: a publicity stunt.  Even Trent Reznor has knocked Radiohead for doing the "free music" thing as a stunt.  I have to wonder if Radiohead's manager considers the "pay what you want" thing to be a failed experiment.  Regarding NIN: I don't know what Trent's thinking on the matter is.  Maybe he just really likes the idea of free music for everyone, and maybe he feels like he has plenty of money - so if he losses income by supporting an idea he likes, then that's his charity for the world.  Further, with as popular as NIN is, they can probably still pay their studio costs even if their revenue drops by 90\%.  (My own expectation is that more bands will release free music as a promotion for concerts.  Like Coldplay, they will probably release live recordings, though, because they're cheap to make; much cheaper than studio recordings.  Of course, they're also lower quality.)</p><blockquote><div><p>Despite record levels of film piracy, both the quality and revenue in the film industry are near their historic peaks.</p></div></blockquote><p>
According to US and Canadian numbers, Box Office revenue did reach it's highest level in 2008.  However, when you look at the numbers, you see that there's been very little growth since 2002.  Box Office revenue has grew by 5\% between 2002 and 2008 (6 year period; 0.9\% average annual growth).  On the other hand, it grew by 118\% between 1987 and 2002 (a 15 year period; 7.9\% average annual growth).  Have movies experienced slower growth because of piracy?  Maybe maybe not.  I wouldn't claim that piracy hasn't had an effect (and that negative effect could get a lot larger if we legalize filesharing).  At least we can say it hasn't dropped the bottom out of the industry (yet).<br>
Source: <a href="http://www.natoonline.org/statisticsboxoffice.htm" title="natoonline.org">http://www.natoonline.org/statisticsboxoffice.htm</a> [natoonline.org]</p><blockquote><div><p>Legalizing non-commercial sharing would merely acknowledge a right the public has already asserted.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Most people do not fileshare.  This is not a right that the public has "already asserted".  If you want to legalize actions based on the number of people doing them, I think you should start with eliminating speeding laws.  Personally, I'm more opposed to internet filesharing than person-to-person piracy.  Why?  Because internet-based piracy is basically super-charging piracy, allowing the everyone in the world to get pirated material in an instant.  Person-to-person sharing is inconvenient on a variety of levels, which means it can only do limited damage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Artists like Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have demonstrated that the patronage model works well for music .
I 'm not sure that they 've demonstrated anything .
Radiohead 's manager says they wo n't be repeating their stunt -- and it seems to have been exactly that : a publicity stunt .
Even Trent Reznor has knocked Radiohead for doing the " free music " thing as a stunt .
I have to wonder if Radiohead 's manager considers the " pay what you want " thing to be a failed experiment .
Regarding NIN : I do n't know what Trent 's thinking on the matter is .
Maybe he just really likes the idea of free music for everyone , and maybe he feels like he has plenty of money - so if he losses income by supporting an idea he likes , then that 's his charity for the world .
Further , with as popular as NIN is , they can probably still pay their studio costs even if their revenue drops by 90 \ % .
( My own expectation is that more bands will release free music as a promotion for concerts .
Like Coldplay , they will probably release live recordings , though , because they 're cheap to make ; much cheaper than studio recordings .
Of course , they 're also lower quality .
) Despite record levels of film piracy , both the quality and revenue in the film industry are near their historic peaks .
According to US and Canadian numbers , Box Office revenue did reach it 's highest level in 2008 .
However , when you look at the numbers , you see that there 's been very little growth since 2002 .
Box Office revenue has grew by 5 \ % between 2002 and 2008 ( 6 year period ; 0.9 \ % average annual growth ) .
On the other hand , it grew by 118 \ % between 1987 and 2002 ( a 15 year period ; 7.9 \ % average annual growth ) .
Have movies experienced slower growth because of piracy ?
Maybe maybe not .
I would n't claim that piracy has n't had an effect ( and that negative effect could get a lot larger if we legalize filesharing ) .
At least we can say it has n't dropped the bottom out of the industry ( yet ) .
Source : http : //www.natoonline.org/statisticsboxoffice.htm [ natoonline.org ] Legalizing non-commercial sharing would merely acknowledge a right the public has already asserted .
Most people do not fileshare .
This is not a right that the public has " already asserted " .
If you want to legalize actions based on the number of people doing them , I think you should start with eliminating speeding laws .
Personally , I 'm more opposed to internet filesharing than person-to-person piracy .
Why ? Because internet-based piracy is basically super-charging piracy , allowing the everyone in the world to get pirated material in an instant .
Person-to-person sharing is inconvenient on a variety of levels , which means it can only do limited damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artists like Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have demonstrated that the patronage model works well for music.
I'm not sure that they've demonstrated anything.
Radiohead's manager says they won't be repeating their stunt -- and it seems to have been exactly that: a publicity stunt.
Even Trent Reznor has knocked Radiohead for doing the "free music" thing as a stunt.
I have to wonder if Radiohead's manager considers the "pay what you want" thing to be a failed experiment.
Regarding NIN: I don't know what Trent's thinking on the matter is.
Maybe he just really likes the idea of free music for everyone, and maybe he feels like he has plenty of money - so if he losses income by supporting an idea he likes, then that's his charity for the world.
Further, with as popular as NIN is, they can probably still pay their studio costs even if their revenue drops by 90\%.
(My own expectation is that more bands will release free music as a promotion for concerts.
Like Coldplay, they will probably release live recordings, though, because they're cheap to make; much cheaper than studio recordings.
Of course, they're also lower quality.
)Despite record levels of film piracy, both the quality and revenue in the film industry are near their historic peaks.
According to US and Canadian numbers, Box Office revenue did reach it's highest level in 2008.
However, when you look at the numbers, you see that there's been very little growth since 2002.
Box Office revenue has grew by 5\% between 2002 and 2008 (6 year period; 0.9\% average annual growth).
On the other hand, it grew by 118\% between 1987 and 2002 (a 15 year period; 7.9\% average annual growth).
Have movies experienced slower growth because of piracy?
Maybe maybe not.
I wouldn't claim that piracy hasn't had an effect (and that negative effect could get a lot larger if we legalize filesharing).
At least we can say it hasn't dropped the bottom out of the industry (yet).
Source: http://www.natoonline.org/statisticsboxoffice.htm [natoonline.org]Legalizing non-commercial sharing would merely acknowledge a right the public has already asserted.
Most people do not fileshare.
This is not a right that the public has "already asserted".
If you want to legalize actions based on the number of people doing them, I think you should start with eliminating speeding laws.
Personally, I'm more opposed to internet filesharing than person-to-person piracy.
Why?  Because internet-based piracy is basically super-charging piracy, allowing the everyone in the world to get pirated material in an instant.
Person-to-person sharing is inconvenient on a variety of levels, which means it can only do limited damage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475283</id>
	<title>Win-Win scenario</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245936360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They win, it adds fuel to the fire and gets the followers bolstered.<br>They lose, someone fights to fill the void (because there is money to be made) and people come up with even new technology to avoid such scenarios.</p><p>Legislators need to come up with an alternate approach to this perceived problem. Similar to how legalization (decriminalization) and regulation of illegal drugs would stop drug wars, some other strategy in the "war on piracy" could bring money to content creators while not making an arms race out of sharing information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They win , it adds fuel to the fire and gets the followers bolstered.They lose , someone fights to fill the void ( because there is money to be made ) and people come up with even new technology to avoid such scenarios.Legislators need to come up with an alternate approach to this perceived problem .
Similar to how legalization ( decriminalization ) and regulation of illegal drugs would stop drug wars , some other strategy in the " war on piracy " could bring money to content creators while not making an arms race out of sharing information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They win, it adds fuel to the fire and gets the followers bolstered.They lose, someone fights to fill the void (because there is money to be made) and people come up with even new technology to avoid such scenarios.Legislators need to come up with an alternate approach to this perceived problem.
Similar to how legalization (decriminalization) and regulation of illegal drugs would stop drug wars, some other strategy in the "war on piracy" could bring money to content creators while not making an arms race out of sharing information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113</id>
	<title>Is Slashdot for or against copyright today?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245941100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm confused, because the GPL is a copyright license.  The FSF says right on its website that the GPL protects the rights of the author by assuring copyright over the software.  Why do Slashdotters believe the rights of the content creators whose material is pirated on PirateBay don't matter, but the rights of GPL authors do?  If copyright law is wrong, then I can do whatever I want with your precious GPL code and completely ignore the usage restrictions described in the copyright license.</p><p>Seriously, do Slashdotters realize how self-serving and hypocritical they come off when they rant about the "MAFIAA" (the latest goofy Slashdot meme) while defending the GPL?  The GPL is a copyright license with usage restrictions, the very things everybody is suddenly opposed to when the copyright is applied to something else!</p><p>Conclusion--if copyright is wrong, then so is the GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused , because the GPL is a copyright license .
The FSF says right on its website that the GPL protects the rights of the author by assuring copyright over the software .
Why do Slashdotters believe the rights of the content creators whose material is pirated on PirateBay do n't matter , but the rights of GPL authors do ?
If copyright law is wrong , then I can do whatever I want with your precious GPL code and completely ignore the usage restrictions described in the copyright license.Seriously , do Slashdotters realize how self-serving and hypocritical they come off when they rant about the " MAFIAA " ( the latest goofy Slashdot meme ) while defending the GPL ?
The GPL is a copyright license with usage restrictions , the very things everybody is suddenly opposed to when the copyright is applied to something else ! Conclusion--if copyright is wrong , then so is the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused, because the GPL is a copyright license.
The FSF says right on its website that the GPL protects the rights of the author by assuring copyright over the software.
Why do Slashdotters believe the rights of the content creators whose material is pirated on PirateBay don't matter, but the rights of GPL authors do?
If copyright law is wrong, then I can do whatever I want with your precious GPL code and completely ignore the usage restrictions described in the copyright license.Seriously, do Slashdotters realize how self-serving and hypocritical they come off when they rant about the "MAFIAA" (the latest goofy Slashdot meme) while defending the GPL?
The GPL is a copyright license with usage restrictions, the very things everybody is suddenly opposed to when the copyright is applied to something else!Conclusion--if copyright is wrong, then so is the GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475703</id>
	<title>Re:clarification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245938640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A tip on using space characters on computers: If you separate words by a slash, that may be ok. But if you separate terms by it, it only makes sense, if you put spaces around the slashes.</p><p>In your comment, this results in interpreting it to be those four sentences:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts are made?<br>Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts are etc?<br>Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal decisions are made?<br>Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal decisions are etc?</p></div><p>You're welcome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A tip on using space characters on computers : If you separate words by a slash , that may be ok. But if you separate terms by it , it only makes sense , if you put spaces around the slashes.In your comment , this results in interpreting it to be those four sentences : Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts are made ? Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts are etc ? Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal decisions are made ? Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal decisions are etc ? You 're welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A tip on using space characters on computers: If you separate words by a slash, that may be ok. But if you separate terms by it, it only makes sense, if you put spaces around the slashes.In your comment, this results in interpreting it to be those four sentences:Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts are made?Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts are etc?Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal decisions are made?Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal decisions are etc?You're welcome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478811</id>
	<title>Re:The GPL relies on copyright law</title>
	<author>init100</author>
	<datestamp>1246049580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles?</p></div><p>Are you too boneheaded to understand that Slashdotters may not all think in the same way? That one subset of Slashdotters may support piracy, and another subset may support the GPL. It's a pretty simple concept actually, I'm surprised that you don't understand it, unless you are a troll of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles ? Are you too boneheaded to understand that Slashdotters may not all think in the same way ?
That one subset of Slashdotters may support piracy , and another subset may support the GPL .
It 's a pretty simple concept actually , I 'm surprised that you do n't understand it , unless you are a troll of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles?Are you too boneheaded to understand that Slashdotters may not all think in the same way?
That one subset of Slashdotters may support piracy, and another subset may support the GPL.
It's a pretty simple concept actually, I'm surprised that you don't understand it, unless you are a troll of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476495</id>
	<title>The view from outside observers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245943740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't normally have any reason to think about the Swedish justice system, but this makes it look like a joke to me. How many people in nations other than Sweden have never followed a Swedish trial before now, and this is their first exposure. Convicting Swedish citizens for the benefit of powerful foreign corporations for "assisting in the infringement of copyrights", where the judge is a member of multiple pro-copyright organizations? Whether it's fair or not, I think that this is a black eye for the Swedish legal system in terms of international perception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't normally have any reason to think about the Swedish justice system , but this makes it look like a joke to me .
How many people in nations other than Sweden have never followed a Swedish trial before now , and this is their first exposure .
Convicting Swedish citizens for the benefit of powerful foreign corporations for " assisting in the infringement of copyrights " , where the judge is a member of multiple pro-copyright organizations ?
Whether it 's fair or not , I think that this is a black eye for the Swedish legal system in terms of international perception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't normally have any reason to think about the Swedish justice system, but this makes it look like a joke to me.
How many people in nations other than Sweden have never followed a Swedish trial before now, and this is their first exposure.
Convicting Swedish citizens for the benefit of powerful foreign corporations for "assisting in the infringement of copyrights", where the judge is a member of multiple pro-copyright organizations?
Whether it's fair or not, I think that this is a black eye for the Swedish legal system in terms of international perception.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28484087</id>
	<title>Re:The Ruling is Complete Garbage</title>
	<author>starfishsystems</author>
	<datestamp>1246036380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>To claim that this caused no bias is a disgrace on the Swedish judicial system.</i>
<br> <br>
I absolutely agree.  There is no more basic principle of justice than impartiality.  To act otherwise is the sheerest arrogance.
<br> <br>
This incident is reminiscent of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa\_(ship)" title="wikipedia.org">Vasa</a> [wikipedia.org].  Here again, an authority has gone out of its way to look foolish, and has succeeded so magnificently, at such a pivotal point in the evolution of technology, that I think Swedish children will be learning about in school for centuries to come.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To claim that this caused no bias is a disgrace on the Swedish judicial system .
I absolutely agree .
There is no more basic principle of justice than impartiality .
To act otherwise is the sheerest arrogance .
This incident is reminiscent of the Vasa [ wikipedia.org ] .
Here again , an authority has gone out of its way to look foolish , and has succeeded so magnificently , at such a pivotal point in the evolution of technology , that I think Swedish children will be learning about in school for centuries to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To claim that this caused no bias is a disgrace on the Swedish judicial system.
I absolutely agree.
There is no more basic principle of justice than impartiality.
To act otherwise is the sheerest arrogance.
This incident is reminiscent of the Vasa [wikipedia.org].
Here again, an authority has gone out of its way to look foolish, and has succeeded so magnificently, at such a pivotal point in the evolution of technology, that I think Swedish children will be learning about in school for centuries to come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481539</id>
	<title>A possible copyright solution.</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1246028100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not set up a charity to buy copyrights from artists and then distribute the works for free to all of society?</p><p>Not to beat a dead horse, but since Micheal Jackson owes like $400,000,000, would it be possible to raise those funds to purchase the copyrights to his works and then give it away to the public?  Couldn't that be an alternative means to fighting copyrights that are too long?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not set up a charity to buy copyrights from artists and then distribute the works for free to all of society ? Not to beat a dead horse , but since Micheal Jackson owes like $ 400,000,000 , would it be possible to raise those funds to purchase the copyrights to his works and then give it away to the public ?
Could n't that be an alternative means to fighting copyrights that are too long ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not set up a charity to buy copyrights from artists and then distribute the works for free to all of society?Not to beat a dead horse, but since Micheal Jackson owes like $400,000,000, would it be possible to raise those funds to purchase the copyrights to his works and then give it away to the public?
Couldn't that be an alternative means to fighting copyrights that are too long?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237</id>
	<title>clarification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245936120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone is quoting this wrong. The only part denied was the one based off the bias. I'm not sure how swedish law works but I'd imagine there are plenty of other ways for this be declared a mistrial. Public uproar will be a part of that too.</p><p>Also, they still have the appeal. So if they are denied appeal or judges make a bad call off the appeal it will make a serious uproar in the country.</p><p>Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts/decisions are made/etc?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone is quoting this wrong .
The only part denied was the one based off the bias .
I 'm not sure how swedish law works but I 'd imagine there are plenty of other ways for this be declared a mistrial .
Public uproar will be a part of that too.Also , they still have the appeal .
So if they are denied appeal or judges make a bad call off the appeal it will make a serious uproar in the country.Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts/decisions are made/etc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone is quoting this wrong.
The only part denied was the one based off the bias.
I'm not sure how swedish law works but I'd imagine there are plenty of other ways for this be declared a mistrial.
Public uproar will be a part of that too.Also, they still have the appeal.
So if they are denied appeal or judges make a bad call off the appeal it will make a serious uproar in the country.Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts/decisions are made/etc?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28486699</id>
	<title>Re:The GPL relies on copyright law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246047060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Informative?! My ass...
<p><div class="quote"><p>The FSF page specifically says that the GPL assures the copyright of software and protects the rights of the content creator.  So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles?</p> </div><p>Haven't really read about the GPL? While the GPL is enforced by copyright it's only there because copyright makes it necessary in the first place.
W/O copyright we could, for instance, freely reverse engineer/decompile your closed source program...
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Does your opposition to copyright mean I can take your GPL code and sell it as a closed-source program?</p></div><p>
Nope, since we can't use your closed source stuff, we use the same tool, copyright, to keep
you away from our stuff (unless you agree to go open).
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're against copyrights, then you're also against the GPL since it's a copyright license with usage restrictions.</p></div><p>Duh! Copyright as it stands w/o any license at all gives you LESS rights (more restrictions) than what you get with the GPL license - rather the opposite to what most closed source licenses tend to do...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Informative ? !
My ass.. . The FSF page specifically says that the GPL assures the copyright of software and protects the rights of the content creator .
So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles ?
Have n't really read about the GPL ?
While the GPL is enforced by copyright it 's only there because copyright makes it necessary in the first place .
W/O copyright we could , for instance , freely reverse engineer/decompile your closed source program.. . Does your opposition to copyright mean I can take your GPL code and sell it as a closed-source program ?
Nope , since we ca n't use your closed source stuff , we use the same tool , copyright , to keep you away from our stuff ( unless you agree to go open ) .
If you 're against copyrights , then you 're also against the GPL since it 's a copyright license with usage restrictions.Duh !
Copyright as it stands w/o any license at all gives you LESS rights ( more restrictions ) than what you get with the GPL license - rather the opposite to what most closed source licenses tend to do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Informative?!
My ass...
The FSF page specifically says that the GPL assures the copyright of software and protects the rights of the content creator.
So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles?
Haven't really read about the GPL?
While the GPL is enforced by copyright it's only there because copyright makes it necessary in the first place.
W/O copyright we could, for instance, freely reverse engineer/decompile your closed source program...
Does your opposition to copyright mean I can take your GPL code and sell it as a closed-source program?
Nope, since we can't use your closed source stuff, we use the same tool, copyright, to keep
you away from our stuff (unless you agree to go open).
If you're against copyrights, then you're also against the GPL since it's a copyright license with usage restrictions.Duh!
Copyright as it stands w/o any license at all gives you LESS rights (more restrictions) than what you get with the GPL license - rather the opposite to what most closed source licenses tend to do...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476043</id>
	<title>Re:how did they ever thingk they would win?!</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1245940620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wrong<br><br>Their bread and butter was people sharing things. Its an incredibly noble and moral thing they are doing!<br><br>People have the freedom not to participate in Piracy... TPB are not police officers, they should not be allowed to stop you from sharing content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WrongTheir bread and butter was people sharing things .
Its an incredibly noble and moral thing they are doing ! People have the freedom not to participate in Piracy... TPB are not police officers , they should not be allowed to stop you from sharing content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WrongTheir bread and butter was people sharing things.
Its an incredibly noble and moral thing they are doing!People have the freedom not to participate in Piracy... TPB are not police officers, they should not be allowed to stop you from sharing content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475959</id>
	<title>how did they ever thingk they would win?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245940020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>their bread and butter was pirated material, how on earth did they think they were going to win this???? i can only think it's some kind of delusion.<p>
I don't think they should go to jail or even wear a massive fine, they aren't violent criminals and it's debatable that they have even cost anyone money. but what they were doing under swedish law was illegal ffs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>their bread and butter was pirated material , how on earth did they think they were going to win this ? ? ? ?
i can only think it 's some kind of delusion .
I do n't think they should go to jail or even wear a massive fine , they are n't violent criminals and it 's debatable that they have even cost anyone money .
but what they were doing under swedish law was illegal ffs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>their bread and butter was pirated material, how on earth did they think they were going to win this????
i can only think it's some kind of delusion.
I don't think they should go to jail or even wear a massive fine, they aren't violent criminals and it's debatable that they have even cost anyone money.
but what they were doing under swedish law was illegal ffs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28480559</id>
	<title>Pffft!</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1246024200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He may have been unbiased, but he definitely was computer illiterate! How could a judge make a ruling of great importance, without knowing the first thing about torrent downloads, he even admitted it was beyond his comprehension, but was able to make a conclusion based on the arguments presented before him. I say BS, you need to know when someone is throwing you a line with a hook on it, that way you can see the type of card playing he does, let's you know how to interpret further accusations/defense they might have. If someone lies to you about something (like a download being local peer to peer and not through a server) and says that piratebay is responsible for serving the content....then it would mean you know this person twists things, and therefor would be very skeptical of further opinions or conclusions from that person, no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He may have been unbiased , but he definitely was computer illiterate !
How could a judge make a ruling of great importance , without knowing the first thing about torrent downloads , he even admitted it was beyond his comprehension , but was able to make a conclusion based on the arguments presented before him .
I say BS , you need to know when someone is throwing you a line with a hook on it , that way you can see the type of card playing he does , let 's you know how to interpret further accusations/defense they might have .
If someone lies to you about something ( like a download being local peer to peer and not through a server ) and says that piratebay is responsible for serving the content....then it would mean you know this person twists things , and therefor would be very skeptical of further opinions or conclusions from that person , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He may have been unbiased, but he definitely was computer illiterate!
How could a judge make a ruling of great importance, without knowing the first thing about torrent downloads, he even admitted it was beyond his comprehension, but was able to make a conclusion based on the arguments presented before him.
I say BS, you need to know when someone is throwing you a line with a hook on it, that way you can see the type of card playing he does, let's you know how to interpret further accusations/defense they might have.
If someone lies to you about something (like a download being local peer to peer and not through a server) and says that piratebay is responsible for serving the content....then it would mean you know this person twists things, and therefor would be very skeptical of further opinions or conclusions from that person, no?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476857</id>
	<title>I cna say no more</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1245946500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a perfect summation of what I believe needs to be done with copyright. I find it appalling that back when the world was large, meaning it took a long time for works to move form one place to another, a 14 year copyright was seen as fine, but now that the world is small, meaning we can send data around in world in seconds, we need life + 70 years. Copyright should be brief so that it serves the purpose of "promoting the progres of useful arts and sciences," not infinite so that companies can sit on things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a perfect summation of what I believe needs to be done with copyright .
I find it appalling that back when the world was large , meaning it took a long time for works to move form one place to another , a 14 year copyright was seen as fine , but now that the world is small , meaning we can send data around in world in seconds , we need life + 70 years .
Copyright should be brief so that it serves the purpose of " promoting the progres of useful arts and sciences , " not infinite so that companies can sit on things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a perfect summation of what I believe needs to be done with copyright.
I find it appalling that back when the world was large, meaning it took a long time for works to move form one place to another, a 14 year copyright was seen as fine, but now that the world is small, meaning we can send data around in world in seconds, we need life + 70 years.
Copyright should be brief so that it serves the purpose of "promoting the progres of useful arts and sciences," not infinite so that companies can sit on things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475553</id>
	<title>Re:New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1245937800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't call it an unfair trial just because you lost. It doesn't matter what slashdot readers think about copyright, the swedish judges are the ones duly elected/appointed to the position of making the decision. What they say goes whether we agree with it or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't call it an unfair trial just because you lost .
It does n't matter what slashdot readers think about copyright , the swedish judges are the ones duly elected/appointed to the position of making the decision .
What they say goes whether we agree with it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't call it an unfair trial just because you lost.
It doesn't matter what slashdot readers think about copyright, the swedish judges are the ones duly elected/appointed to the position of making the decision.
What they say goes whether we agree with it or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477765</id>
	<title>Re:how did they ever thingk they would win?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245954060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wrong, there is no copyrighted material hosted on TPB...</p></div></blockquote><p>No, <em>you're</em> wrong. There's plenty of copyrighted material hosted on TPB, but it's completely legal because TPB is itself the copyright holder!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong , there is no copyrighted material hosted on TPB...No , you 're wrong .
There 's plenty of copyrighted material hosted on TPB , but it 's completely legal because TPB is itself the copyright holder !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong, there is no copyrighted material hosted on TPB...No, you're wrong.
There's plenty of copyrighted material hosted on TPB, but it's completely legal because TPB is itself the copyright holder!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28482265</id>
	<title>Re:how did they ever thingk they would win?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ALSO, according to swedish law, you can A) Not convict someone for aiding a crime when nobody has been charged with the crime itself, and B) Not hand out harsher sentences for helping than for commiting the actual crime, and C) penalties doesn't scale by the number of crimes; Ie, if you kill someone and get prison for life, you don't get 2x prison for life if you kill two people. So, all in all it's a highly problematic ruling all in all, and not at all in tune with how the system works. So IF the pirate bay people broke a few paragraphs, which is far from clear, it seems that the "judge", broke a few too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ALSO , according to swedish law , you can A ) Not convict someone for aiding a crime when nobody has been charged with the crime itself , and B ) Not hand out harsher sentences for helping than for commiting the actual crime , and C ) penalties does n't scale by the number of crimes ; Ie , if you kill someone and get prison for life , you do n't get 2x prison for life if you kill two people .
So , all in all it 's a highly problematic ruling all in all , and not at all in tune with how the system works .
So IF the pirate bay people broke a few paragraphs , which is far from clear , it seems that the " judge " , broke a few too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ALSO, according to swedish law, you can A) Not convict someone for aiding a crime when nobody has been charged with the crime itself, and B) Not hand out harsher sentences for helping than for commiting the actual crime, and C) penalties doesn't scale by the number of crimes; Ie, if you kill someone and get prison for life, you don't get 2x prison for life if you kill two people.
So, all in all it's a highly problematic ruling all in all, and not at all in tune with how the system works.
So IF the pirate bay people broke a few paragraphs, which is far from clear, it seems that the "judge", broke a few too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477567</id>
	<title>Re:Is Slashdot for or against copyright today?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245952140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll probably be modded troll for this, but this is my opinion, and agree with it or not, it is still my opinion.  If you can share yours, don't be upset for me doing the same.<br>If you disagree with my opinion, hit reply and try to persuade me.  Hit reply and cuss me out.  Ignore me as a freak.  But don't get pissed off because someone feels differently than you, ktnx.</p><p>Two points</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do Slashdotters believe the rights of the content creators whose material is pirated on PirateBay don't matter, but the rights of GPL authors do? If copyright law is wrong, then I can do whatever I want with your precious GPL code and completely ignore the usage restrictions described in the copyright license.</p></div><p>First, no one said that "the rights of the content creators whose material is pirated on PirateBay don't matter"</p><p>I will say it, because that is what I believe.  But that is not what most slashdotters think or feel, you are just making things up and posting them.</p><p>Second, you are right, the GPL should not exist.  Without copyright law, as I said I am for, the GPL *wouldn't* exist!</p><p>Copyright needs abolished.  And before you say "How do you expect artists to be compensated?", the answer is, by getting a job like everyone else.  No one should have any say so or right to control the sharing of what is in your head.<br>That covers both the things I come up with in my head myself and share, OR the things in my head put there by others who clearly choose to share them by making them public.</p><p>Copyright is not about doing squat for artists or 'content creators' as you call them, except for limiting their rights.<br>How can a law that, while yes protecting that fraction of 0.001\% of the thoughts you made, but in exchange for removing your right to use the other 99.999\% of the thoughts in your mind that came from 'outside', usually from another fellow human being?  That is not protecting your rights, its removing them.</p><p>While most of slashdot is all about making copyright sane, all they are arguing over is how restricted is ok, 99.999\% or just 99.991\%, simply because one number is lower than the other.</p><p>Humanity developed language more complex than any other primate (or life of any sort for that matter) just to share the ideas and thoughts in our heads.  That is such an insanely great accomplishment of history!<br>And now, very recently compared to the rise of human language, a small group of people are wanting to reverse that effect and prevent us from sharing those ideas that brought about civilization.</p><p>It's an all or nothing solution.  We are either free, or not.  There can be no middle ground. Our society will either have to control all of it or none of it.  Our communications will either have to be monitored or free, our privacy to be either continuously probed or protected.<br>Copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root.</p><p>The right to copy and imitate, to share ideas and information, is a right that exists independently of our government.<br>Gravity is not made or destroyed by the government, nor are rights. Just as gravity can not be bought or sold for the sake of the will of others, nor can rights. Rights are observable.<br>We evolved to use language to share our ideas.  Language wouldn't need to exist as it does if not.   Humanity would not be where it is today, and you would not be in a civilized nation to create ideas, if it wasn't for the ideas that were shared before you were born.  You have NO say so about that changing.  It will not.  It can not.</p><p>And finally</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Conclusion--if copyright is wrong, then so is the GPL.</p></div><p>Exactly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll probably be modded troll for this , but this is my opinion , and agree with it or not , it is still my opinion .
If you can share yours , do n't be upset for me doing the same.If you disagree with my opinion , hit reply and try to persuade me .
Hit reply and cuss me out .
Ignore me as a freak .
But do n't get pissed off because someone feels differently than you , ktnx.Two pointsWhy do Slashdotters believe the rights of the content creators whose material is pirated on PirateBay do n't matter , but the rights of GPL authors do ?
If copyright law is wrong , then I can do whatever I want with your precious GPL code and completely ignore the usage restrictions described in the copyright license.First , no one said that " the rights of the content creators whose material is pirated on PirateBay do n't matter " I will say it , because that is what I believe .
But that is not what most slashdotters think or feel , you are just making things up and posting them.Second , you are right , the GPL should not exist .
Without copyright law , as I said I am for , the GPL * would n't * exist ! Copyright needs abolished .
And before you say " How do you expect artists to be compensated ?
" , the answer is , by getting a job like everyone else .
No one should have any say so or right to control the sharing of what is in your head.That covers both the things I come up with in my head myself and share , OR the things in my head put there by others who clearly choose to share them by making them public.Copyright is not about doing squat for artists or 'content creators ' as you call them , except for limiting their rights.How can a law that , while yes protecting that fraction of 0.001 \ % of the thoughts you made , but in exchange for removing your right to use the other 99.999 \ % of the thoughts in your mind that came from 'outside ' , usually from another fellow human being ?
That is not protecting your rights , its removing them.While most of slashdot is all about making copyright sane , all they are arguing over is how restricted is ok , 99.999 \ % or just 99.991 \ % , simply because one number is lower than the other.Humanity developed language more complex than any other primate ( or life of any sort for that matter ) just to share the ideas and thoughts in our heads .
That is such an insanely great accomplishment of history ! And now , very recently compared to the rise of human language , a small group of people are wanting to reverse that effect and prevent us from sharing those ideas that brought about civilization.It 's an all or nothing solution .
We are either free , or not .
There can be no middle ground .
Our society will either have to control all of it or none of it .
Our communications will either have to be monitored or free , our privacy to be either continuously probed or protected.Copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root.The right to copy and imitate , to share ideas and information , is a right that exists independently of our government.Gravity is not made or destroyed by the government , nor are rights .
Just as gravity can not be bought or sold for the sake of the will of others , nor can rights .
Rights are observable.We evolved to use language to share our ideas .
Language would n't need to exist as it does if not .
Humanity would not be where it is today , and you would not be in a civilized nation to create ideas , if it was n't for the ideas that were shared before you were born .
You have NO say so about that changing .
It will not .
It can not.And finallyConclusion--if copyright is wrong , then so is the GPL.Exactly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll probably be modded troll for this, but this is my opinion, and agree with it or not, it is still my opinion.
If you can share yours, don't be upset for me doing the same.If you disagree with my opinion, hit reply and try to persuade me.
Hit reply and cuss me out.
Ignore me as a freak.
But don't get pissed off because someone feels differently than you, ktnx.Two pointsWhy do Slashdotters believe the rights of the content creators whose material is pirated on PirateBay don't matter, but the rights of GPL authors do?
If copyright law is wrong, then I can do whatever I want with your precious GPL code and completely ignore the usage restrictions described in the copyright license.First, no one said that "the rights of the content creators whose material is pirated on PirateBay don't matter"I will say it, because that is what I believe.
But that is not what most slashdotters think or feel, you are just making things up and posting them.Second, you are right, the GPL should not exist.
Without copyright law, as I said I am for, the GPL *wouldn't* exist!Copyright needs abolished.
And before you say "How do you expect artists to be compensated?
", the answer is, by getting a job like everyone else.
No one should have any say so or right to control the sharing of what is in your head.That covers both the things I come up with in my head myself and share, OR the things in my head put there by others who clearly choose to share them by making them public.Copyright is not about doing squat for artists or 'content creators' as you call them, except for limiting their rights.How can a law that, while yes protecting that fraction of 0.001\% of the thoughts you made, but in exchange for removing your right to use the other 99.999\% of the thoughts in your mind that came from 'outside', usually from another fellow human being?
That is not protecting your rights, its removing them.While most of slashdot is all about making copyright sane, all they are arguing over is how restricted is ok, 99.999\% or just 99.991\%, simply because one number is lower than the other.Humanity developed language more complex than any other primate (or life of any sort for that matter) just to share the ideas and thoughts in our heads.
That is such an insanely great accomplishment of history!And now, very recently compared to the rise of human language, a small group of people are wanting to reverse that effect and prevent us from sharing those ideas that brought about civilization.It's an all or nothing solution.
We are either free, or not.
There can be no middle ground.
Our society will either have to control all of it or none of it.
Our communications will either have to be monitored or free, our privacy to be either continuously probed or protected.Copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root.The right to copy and imitate, to share ideas and information, is a right that exists independently of our government.Gravity is not made or destroyed by the government, nor are rights.
Just as gravity can not be bought or sold for the sake of the will of others, nor can rights.
Rights are observable.We evolved to use language to share our ideas.
Language wouldn't need to exist as it does if not.
Humanity would not be where it is today, and you would not be in a civilized nation to create ideas, if it wasn't for the ideas that were shared before you were born.
You have NO say so about that changing.
It will not.
It can not.And finallyConclusion--if copyright is wrong, then so is the GPL.Exactly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478793</id>
	<title>In the paraphrase of Shakespear...</title>
	<author>catxk</author>
	<datestamp>1246049460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is something rotten in the state of Sweden...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is something rotten in the state of Sweden.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is something rotten in the state of Sweden...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475657</id>
	<title>Re:clarification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245938460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>poetmatt:</p><blockquote><div><p>Everyone is quoting this wrong. The only part denied was the one based off the bias.</p></div></blockquote><p>From the Summary:</p><blockquote><div><p>A Swedish court has ruled that the judge in the PirateBay trial is unbiased and there will be no retrial</p></div></blockquote><p>poetmatt:</p><blockquote><div><p>The only part denied was the one based off the bias</p></div></blockquote><p>Summary:</p><blockquote><div><p>Stockholm District Court defended the judge's membership in copyright organizations as a necessity to 'keep up with developments in the field' and that merely endorsing the idea of copyright law was not grounds for a mistrial</p></div></blockquote><p>poetmatt:</p><blockquote><div><p>Also, they still have the appeal</p></div></blockquote><p>Summary:</p><blockquote><div><p>The defendants must now rely on the appeal process</p></div></blockquote><p>Sorry, <i>who</i> is getting this wrong?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>poetmatt : Everyone is quoting this wrong .
The only part denied was the one based off the bias.From the Summary : A Swedish court has ruled that the judge in the PirateBay trial is unbiased and there will be no retrialpoetmatt : The only part denied was the one based off the biasSummary : Stockholm District Court defended the judge 's membership in copyright organizations as a necessity to 'keep up with developments in the field ' and that merely endorsing the idea of copyright law was not grounds for a mistrialpoetmatt : Also , they still have the appealSummary : The defendants must now rely on the appeal processSorry , who is getting this wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>poetmatt:Everyone is quoting this wrong.
The only part denied was the one based off the bias.From the Summary:A Swedish court has ruled that the judge in the PirateBay trial is unbiased and there will be no retrialpoetmatt:The only part denied was the one based off the biasSummary:Stockholm District Court defended the judge's membership in copyright organizations as a necessity to 'keep up with developments in the field' and that merely endorsing the idea of copyright law was not grounds for a mistrialpoetmatt:Also, they still have the appealSummary:The defendants must now rely on the appeal processSorry, who is getting this wrong?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28483371</id>
	<title>Re:The GPL relies on copyright law</title>
	<author>croddy</author>
	<datestamp>1246033740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The GPL is a weapon useful for diminishing the regime of the copyright proprietarians. To say that one may not use copyright to fight its abusers is akin to saying that one may not carry a rifle against his oppressors who wield artillery.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL is a weapon useful for diminishing the regime of the copyright proprietarians .
To say that one may not use copyright to fight its abusers is akin to saying that one may not carry a rifle against his oppressors who wield artillery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL is a weapon useful for diminishing the regime of the copyright proprietarians.
To say that one may not use copyright to fight its abusers is akin to saying that one may not carry a rifle against his oppressors who wield artillery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257</id>
	<title>New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>wizden</author>
	<datestamp>1245936240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human rights violations? WTF. I think the judge is obviously biased and I disagree with the decision, but what human rights are being violated? What a bunch of self righteous pussies we are becoming. Read some history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human rights violations ?
WTF. I think the judge is obviously biased and I disagree with the decision , but what human rights are being violated ?
What a bunch of self righteous pussies we are becoming .
Read some history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human rights violations?
WTF. I think the judge is obviously biased and I disagree with the decision, but what human rights are being violated?
What a bunch of self righteous pussies we are becoming.
Read some history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478863</id>
	<title>Well, that's OK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246006860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"merely endorsing the idea of copyright law was not grounds for a mistrial. "</p><p>That's all right, it isn't merely endorsing the idea of copyright law, it's being friends with the prosecuting solicitor, friends of the prosecution and making up a law that doesn't exist.</p><p>So three other reasons that don't fall under that and so it can be claimed a mistrial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" merely endorsing the idea of copyright law was not grounds for a mistrial .
" That 's all right , it is n't merely endorsing the idea of copyright law , it 's being friends with the prosecuting solicitor , friends of the prosecution and making up a law that does n't exist.So three other reasons that do n't fall under that and so it can be claimed a mistrial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"merely endorsing the idea of copyright law was not grounds for a mistrial.
"That's all right, it isn't merely endorsing the idea of copyright law, it's being friends with the prosecuting solicitor, friends of the prosecution and making up a law that doesn't exist.So three other reasons that don't fall under that and so it can be claimed a mistrial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476389</id>
	<title>Re:clarification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245943020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think perhaps your english grammar parser needs a bit of slack/fuzz putting into it to help you be less of a pedant!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>pot meet kettle - no one's perfect - you're great with commas, i don't use capital letters and someone else is careless with their slashes [shrug] - but we still know what one another mean, really.</p><p>english isn't always someone's strongest skill - nor necessarily their first language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think perhaps your english grammar parser needs a bit of slack/fuzz putting into it to help you be less of a pedant !
; ) pot meet kettle - no one 's perfect - you 're great with commas , i do n't use capital letters and someone else is careless with their slashes [ shrug ] - but we still know what one another mean , really.english is n't always someone 's strongest skill - nor necessarily their first language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think perhaps your english grammar parser needs a bit of slack/fuzz putting into it to help you be less of a pedant!
;)pot meet kettle - no one's perfect - you're great with commas, i don't use capital letters and someone else is careless with their slashes [shrug] - but we still know what one another mean, really.english isn't always someone's strongest skill - nor necessarily their first language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475377</id>
	<title>I can see this happening in the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245936840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Judge Bauregard P Burnside today justified his membership in the KKK saying, 'I have to keep up on current civil rights developments.'"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Judge Bauregard P Burnside today justified his membership in the KKK saying , 'I have to keep up on current civil rights developments .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Judge Bauregard P Burnside today justified his membership in the KKK saying, 'I have to keep up on current civil rights developments.
'"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477215</id>
	<title>Re:how did they ever thingk they would win?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245949200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chapter 23, Section 4 of the Swedish criminal code states that if an offense can result in a prison term, and if you're complicit in the act, then you'll be held liable, too.</p><p>It's a pretty common concept that's found in legal systems all over the world, including that of the US.</p><p>I'm not sure why you mentioned that there's no copyrighted material hosted on TPB. It sounds like either you're confused about what they were convicted for, or (even worse) you're trying to throw up a straw man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chapter 23 , Section 4 of the Swedish criminal code states that if an offense can result in a prison term , and if you 're complicit in the act , then you 'll be held liable , too.It 's a pretty common concept that 's found in legal systems all over the world , including that of the US.I 'm not sure why you mentioned that there 's no copyrighted material hosted on TPB .
It sounds like either you 're confused about what they were convicted for , or ( even worse ) you 're trying to throw up a straw man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chapter 23, Section 4 of the Swedish criminal code states that if an offense can result in a prison term, and if you're complicit in the act, then you'll be held liable, too.It's a pretty common concept that's found in legal systems all over the world, including that of the US.I'm not sure why you mentioned that there's no copyrighted material hosted on TPB.
It sounds like either you're confused about what they were convicted for, or (even worse) you're trying to throw up a straw man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477875</id>
	<title>Re:I can see this happening in the US</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1245954960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.<br>And i need to be a member of the Mafia to understand its internals.<br>What hogwash is the Swedish court saying???<br>If this were US, the judgement would be set aside.<br>All Nordic countries are stupid and dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.And i need to be a member of the Mafia to understand its internals.What hogwash is the Swedish court saying ? ?
? If this were US , the judgement would be set aside.All Nordic countries are stupid and dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.And i need to be a member of the Mafia to understand its internals.What hogwash is the Swedish court saying??
?If this were US, the judgement would be set aside.All Nordic countries are stupid and dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28502853</id>
	<title>maybe not surprising</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1246195620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not surprised membership alone doesn't disqualify this judge.  But they obviously must research all his past writings on copyright and dealings with the organizations, as well as subpoena records of all his recent large financial transactions.  If they can show bias now, this will cast doubt upon all members of that organization in future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not surprised membership alone does n't disqualify this judge .
But they obviously must research all his past writings on copyright and dealings with the organizations , as well as subpoena records of all his recent large financial transactions .
If they can show bias now , this will cast doubt upon all members of that organization in future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not surprised membership alone doesn't disqualify this judge.
But they obviously must research all his past writings on copyright and dealings with the organizations, as well as subpoena records of all his recent large financial transactions.
If they can show bias now, this will cast doubt upon all members of that organization in future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481093</id>
	<title>Re:False dichotomy</title>
	<author>CoccoBill</author>
	<datestamp>1246026600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A false dichotomy is an old debating trick where one party says, "well, you oppose X, and therefore you must be for Y!" It's called "false" because the world really doesn't work that way. There are many different options.</p></div><p>Woah. All this time I've though I can only be strictly for or against abortion, a religion, a political party or movement, an operating system, a war, a football team (the football that's played with not really a ball with your hands) and a number of other issues. This opens up truly fascinating possibilities!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A false dichotomy is an old debating trick where one party says , " well , you oppose X , and therefore you must be for Y !
" It 's called " false " because the world really does n't work that way .
There are many different options.Woah .
All this time I 've though I can only be strictly for or against abortion , a religion , a political party or movement , an operating system , a war , a football team ( the football that 's played with not really a ball with your hands ) and a number of other issues .
This opens up truly fascinating possibilities !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A false dichotomy is an old debating trick where one party says, "well, you oppose X, and therefore you must be for Y!
" It's called "false" because the world really doesn't work that way.
There are many different options.Woah.
All this time I've though I can only be strictly for or against abortion, a religion, a political party or movement, an operating system, a war, a football team (the football that's played with not really a ball with your hands) and a number of other issues.
This opens up truly fascinating possibilities!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478141</id>
	<title>Re:New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1245957420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A judge being having strong emotions towards a crime you're accused of is no problem for you?</p><p>First, I could see him being more ready to accept you're guilty because he would not want to let a guilty man escape. I dunno about your country, but here a trial isn't opened until there is at least some material available other than "I think he did it".</p><p>Second, in case you're actually guilty, there is usually some leeway in the hands of the judge concerning the verdict, to take into account the circumstances the crime was commited in. A judge strongly biased against what you did will probably use it to punish you as severely as he possibly can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A judge being having strong emotions towards a crime you 're accused of is no problem for you ? First , I could see him being more ready to accept you 're guilty because he would not want to let a guilty man escape .
I dunno about your country , but here a trial is n't opened until there is at least some material available other than " I think he did it " .Second , in case you 're actually guilty , there is usually some leeway in the hands of the judge concerning the verdict , to take into account the circumstances the crime was commited in .
A judge strongly biased against what you did will probably use it to punish you as severely as he possibly can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A judge being having strong emotions towards a crime you're accused of is no problem for you?First, I could see him being more ready to accept you're guilty because he would not want to let a guilty man escape.
I dunno about your country, but here a trial isn't opened until there is at least some material available other than "I think he did it".Second, in case you're actually guilty, there is usually some leeway in the hands of the judge concerning the verdict, to take into account the circumstances the crime was commited in.
A judge strongly biased against what you did will probably use it to punish you as severely as he possibly can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28480981</id>
	<title>Re:The GPL relies on copyright law</title>
	<author>CoccoBill</author>
	<datestamp>1246026120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles?</p></div><p>Because we, "Slashdot", are a singular sentient being, that absolutely does not consist of individuals with varying opinions.</p><p>Who are you and why are you trying to infiltrate us?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles ? Because we , " Slashdot " , are a singular sentient being , that absolutely does not consist of individuals with varying opinions.Who are you and why are you trying to infiltrate us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles?Because we, "Slashdot", are a singular sentient being, that absolutely does not consist of individuals with varying opinions.Who are you and why are you trying to infiltrate us?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475669</id>
	<title>Re:New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245938460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So wait, the fact that a juge is against drugs biases him against you having or not having drugs how exactly ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So wait , the fact that a juge is against drugs biases him against you having or not having drugs how exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So wait, the fact that a juge is against drugs biases him against you having or not having drugs how exactly ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476505</id>
	<title>Re:how did they ever thingk they would win?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245943800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wrong, there is no copyrighted material hosted on TPB, only links to things that may, possibly contain copyrighted material. Can you point out exactly what Swedish laws they broke?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong , there is no copyrighted material hosted on TPB , only links to things that may , possibly contain copyrighted material .
Can you point out exactly what Swedish laws they broke ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong, there is no copyrighted material hosted on TPB, only links to things that may, possibly contain copyrighted material.
Can you point out exactly what Swedish laws they broke?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476817</id>
	<title>wait a minute.</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1245946140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't most modern governments have something in their constitutions or charters which prohibit making laws with the sole purpose being just to prosecute someone?</p><p>Isn't that what Swedish parliament did?  Didn't they specifically pass a law to prosecute TPB?</p><p>If not, then the whole process is a sham.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't most modern governments have something in their constitutions or charters which prohibit making laws with the sole purpose being just to prosecute someone ? Is n't that what Swedish parliament did ?
Did n't they specifically pass a law to prosecute TPB ? If not , then the whole process is a sham .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't most modern governments have something in their constitutions or charters which prohibit making laws with the sole purpose being just to prosecute someone?Isn't that what Swedish parliament did?
Didn't they specifically pass a law to prosecute TPB?If not, then the whole process is a sham.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478899</id>
	<title>Re:New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1246007160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This trial is about whether or not they broke Swedish law. As slashdotters constantly whine on about, they claim they have done nothing wrong under Swedish law.<br>If they are right, then what's the problem? the judge supprots Swedish law (duh... he is a JUDGE), and TPB guys claim innocence under that law.</p><p>If they are pretending to be freedom fighters who want to CHANGE the law, they need to talk to politicians, not a judge. In fact, your first step in changing a law is to get yourself lawfully caught and arrested under it so you can show its injustice.<br>Thats if you actually give a fuck... rather than just trying to wangle out of a prison sentence at all costs like these guys.</p><p>BTW judges are set by politicians elected by the people. If they set harsh drug or copyright laws, then that represents the will of the people. If thepirateparty have 60\% membership, you may have a leg to stand on, but the majority of Swedish voters clearly like the current law as it stands, and thus they fully expect (quite reasonably) that the police, and judges will enforce that law.</p><p>I would hate to live in a country where politicians are voted in to make laws, but judges ignore them. Only on slashdot would people pretend that's a good idea (just to justify piracy).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This trial is about whether or not they broke Swedish law .
As slashdotters constantly whine on about , they claim they have done nothing wrong under Swedish law.If they are right , then what 's the problem ?
the judge supprots Swedish law ( duh... he is a JUDGE ) , and TPB guys claim innocence under that law.If they are pretending to be freedom fighters who want to CHANGE the law , they need to talk to politicians , not a judge .
In fact , your first step in changing a law is to get yourself lawfully caught and arrested under it so you can show its injustice.Thats if you actually give a fuck... rather than just trying to wangle out of a prison sentence at all costs like these guys.BTW judges are set by politicians elected by the people .
If they set harsh drug or copyright laws , then that represents the will of the people .
If thepirateparty have 60 \ % membership , you may have a leg to stand on , but the majority of Swedish voters clearly like the current law as it stands , and thus they fully expect ( quite reasonably ) that the police , and judges will enforce that law.I would hate to live in a country where politicians are voted in to make laws , but judges ignore them .
Only on slashdot would people pretend that 's a good idea ( just to justify piracy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This trial is about whether or not they broke Swedish law.
As slashdotters constantly whine on about, they claim they have done nothing wrong under Swedish law.If they are right, then what's the problem?
the judge supprots Swedish law (duh... he is a JUDGE), and TPB guys claim innocence under that law.If they are pretending to be freedom fighters who want to CHANGE the law, they need to talk to politicians, not a judge.
In fact, your first step in changing a law is to get yourself lawfully caught and arrested under it so you can show its injustice.Thats if you actually give a fuck... rather than just trying to wangle out of a prison sentence at all costs like these guys.BTW judges are set by politicians elected by the people.
If they set harsh drug or copyright laws, then that represents the will of the people.
If thepirateparty have 60\% membership, you may have a leg to stand on, but the majority of Swedish voters clearly like the current law as it stands, and thus they fully expect (quite reasonably) that the police, and judges will enforce that law.I would hate to live in a country where politicians are voted in to make laws, but judges ignore them.
Only on slashdot would people pretend that's a good idea (just to justify piracy).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431</id>
	<title>False dichotomy</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1245943320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A false dichotomy is an old debating trick where one party says, "well, you oppose X, and therefore you must be for Y!" It's called "false" because the world really doesn't work that way. There are many different options.</p><p>You are employing a false dichotomy here. Opposition to the current copyright regime is not synonymous with the abolition of copyright. Many of us, instead, feel that copyright needs to be reformed, not abolished:</p><ol> <li> <b>Limit copyright to reasonable terms</b> and re-establish the tradition of a rich public domain. Copyrights last live longer than most people do constitute a fencing-in of our common culture and do not stimulate creativity, and in fact subvert the original social contract governing copyright.</li><li> <b>Legalize non-commercial distribution of audiovisual works</b>. It is unreasonable to ban a practice that the population overwhelmingly favors in order to enrich a few industry moguls. Banning noncommercial reproduction of these works does little to engender creativity and much to create animosity between the content industry and the consumer, which leads to the pathetic sight of an association of dying companies suing its own customers. Artists like Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have demonstrated that the patronage model works well for music. Despite record levels of film piracy, both the quality and revenue in the film industry are near their historic peaks. Legalizing non-commercial sharing would merely acknowledge a right the public has already asserted. Morality should influence law, not vice versa.</li><li> <b>Repeal draconian enforcement laws</b>. Bringing a camera anywhere, much less a movie theater, should not be a criminal offense, much less a felony. Copyright infringement is an economic crime and should have economic penalties.</li><li> <b>Copyrights should require periodic renewal</b>. It is appalling that a works can be kept out of public sight for the better part of a century on the faint hope that a corporation might someday squeeze a little more juice from the turnip. Idle, unexploited works belong in the public domain:  the current owners have demonstrated in inability to further develop these works, and the public deserves a chance. A periodic copyright renewal fee would ensure that only works that merit the full term of copyright retain it.</li></ol><p>These changes will maintain the spirit and essential utility of copyright law while curbing the abuses of the past half-century. Reform will restore copyright to the status of a fair social contract that rewards creativity without smothering it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A false dichotomy is an old debating trick where one party says , " well , you oppose X , and therefore you must be for Y !
" It 's called " false " because the world really does n't work that way .
There are many different options.You are employing a false dichotomy here .
Opposition to the current copyright regime is not synonymous with the abolition of copyright .
Many of us , instead , feel that copyright needs to be reformed , not abolished : Limit copyright to reasonable terms and re-establish the tradition of a rich public domain .
Copyrights last live longer than most people do constitute a fencing-in of our common culture and do not stimulate creativity , and in fact subvert the original social contract governing copyright .
Legalize non-commercial distribution of audiovisual works .
It is unreasonable to ban a practice that the population overwhelmingly favors in order to enrich a few industry moguls .
Banning noncommercial reproduction of these works does little to engender creativity and much to create animosity between the content industry and the consumer , which leads to the pathetic sight of an association of dying companies suing its own customers .
Artists like Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have demonstrated that the patronage model works well for music .
Despite record levels of film piracy , both the quality and revenue in the film industry are near their historic peaks .
Legalizing non-commercial sharing would merely acknowledge a right the public has already asserted .
Morality should influence law , not vice versa .
Repeal draconian enforcement laws .
Bringing a camera anywhere , much less a movie theater , should not be a criminal offense , much less a felony .
Copyright infringement is an economic crime and should have economic penalties .
Copyrights should require periodic renewal .
It is appalling that a works can be kept out of public sight for the better part of a century on the faint hope that a corporation might someday squeeze a little more juice from the turnip .
Idle , unexploited works belong in the public domain : the current owners have demonstrated in inability to further develop these works , and the public deserves a chance .
A periodic copyright renewal fee would ensure that only works that merit the full term of copyright retain it.These changes will maintain the spirit and essential utility of copyright law while curbing the abuses of the past half-century .
Reform will restore copyright to the status of a fair social contract that rewards creativity without smothering it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A false dichotomy is an old debating trick where one party says, "well, you oppose X, and therefore you must be for Y!
" It's called "false" because the world really doesn't work that way.
There are many different options.You are employing a false dichotomy here.
Opposition to the current copyright regime is not synonymous with the abolition of copyright.
Many of us, instead, feel that copyright needs to be reformed, not abolished:  Limit copyright to reasonable terms and re-establish the tradition of a rich public domain.
Copyrights last live longer than most people do constitute a fencing-in of our common culture and do not stimulate creativity, and in fact subvert the original social contract governing copyright.
Legalize non-commercial distribution of audiovisual works.
It is unreasonable to ban a practice that the population overwhelmingly favors in order to enrich a few industry moguls.
Banning noncommercial reproduction of these works does little to engender creativity and much to create animosity between the content industry and the consumer, which leads to the pathetic sight of an association of dying companies suing its own customers.
Artists like Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have demonstrated that the patronage model works well for music.
Despite record levels of film piracy, both the quality and revenue in the film industry are near their historic peaks.
Legalizing non-commercial sharing would merely acknowledge a right the public has already asserted.
Morality should influence law, not vice versa.
Repeal draconian enforcement laws.
Bringing a camera anywhere, much less a movie theater, should not be a criminal offense, much less a felony.
Copyright infringement is an economic crime and should have economic penalties.
Copyrights should require periodic renewal.
It is appalling that a works can be kept out of public sight for the better part of a century on the faint hope that a corporation might someday squeeze a little more juice from the turnip.
Idle, unexploited works belong in the public domain:  the current owners have demonstrated in inability to further develop these works, and the public deserves a chance.
A periodic copyright renewal fee would ensure that only works that merit the full term of copyright retain it.These changes will maintain the spirit and essential utility of copyright law while curbing the abuses of the past half-century.
Reform will restore copyright to the status of a fair social contract that rewards creativity without smothering it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476007</id>
	<title>Re:clarification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245940320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure how swedish law works</p></div><p>That's ok. Swedish judges aren't sure either</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how swedish law worksThat 's ok. Swedish judges are n't sure either</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how swedish law worksThat's ok. Swedish judges aren't sure either
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478649</id>
	<title>I lost my faith</title>
	<author>icsx</author>
	<datestamp>1246048320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just lost my faith to Swedish court system. Even though Piratebay is sorta spreading illegal material through their trackers, the hunt of them has been lead by copyright lobby's and firms up to a point where only winning is the goal no matter what means (bribery) there are used.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just lost my faith to Swedish court system .
Even though Piratebay is sorta spreading illegal material through their trackers , the hunt of them has been lead by copyright lobby 's and firms up to a point where only winning is the goal no matter what means ( bribery ) there are used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just lost my faith to Swedish court system.
Even though Piratebay is sorta spreading illegal material through their trackers, the hunt of them has been lead by copyright lobby's and firms up to a point where only winning is the goal no matter what means (bribery) there are used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28479743</id>
	<title>Re:New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1246016040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why was the trial not fair?<br>The judge believes in  and supprots swedish law. You seriously would prefer a system where judges make up the law on their own?</p><p>besides, if TPB are right and what they are doing is legal 'under swedish law' wtf are they worried about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why was the trial not fair ? The judge believes in and supprots swedish law .
You seriously would prefer a system where judges make up the law on their own ? besides , if TPB are right and what they are doing is legal 'under swedish law ' wtf are they worried about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why was the trial not fair?The judge believes in  and supprots swedish law.
You seriously would prefer a system where judges make up the law on their own?besides, if TPB are right and what they are doing is legal 'under swedish law' wtf are they worried about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28485981</id>
	<title>Re:The GPL relies on copyright law</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1246043640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can understand occasional mild flaming if someone earns it, but of your three sentences one was insightful and the other two inciteful. Not that I haven't resorted to a bit of flame myself sometimes, but I think most can agree Youtube comments are a better place for that. If I had mod points I wouldn't mod you down but I wouldn't mod you up either, despite the relevent point you make. Nothing against you, I just hate to see good points get lost amongst the flames.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand occasional mild flaming if someone earns it , but of your three sentences one was insightful and the other two inciteful .
Not that I have n't resorted to a bit of flame myself sometimes , but I think most can agree Youtube comments are a better place for that .
If I had mod points I would n't mod you down but I would n't mod you up either , despite the relevent point you make .
Nothing against you , I just hate to see good points get lost amongst the flames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand occasional mild flaming if someone earns it, but of your three sentences one was insightful and the other two inciteful.
Not that I haven't resorted to a bit of flame myself sometimes, but I think most can agree Youtube comments are a better place for that.
If I had mod points I wouldn't mod you down but I wouldn't mod you up either, despite the relevent point you make.
Nothing against you, I just hate to see good points get lost amongst the flames.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475385</id>
	<title>Re:New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245936840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that the defendant in this case is The Pirate Bay doesn't change the fact that they deserve a fair trial.</p><p>If you were on trial for marijuana possession but the judge was a member of dozens of groups with names such as "Stop Drugs Now", "Weed Killed My Son", "Christians for a Drug Free America" etc etc, regularly received kickbacks from commercially-run prisons (who cater specifically to drugs-related incarcerations) and frequently accepted donations from government anti-legalization lobbyists, would you consider yourself likely to receive a fair trial?</p><p>Therefore, following on from this, would you therefore say that your constitutionally protected right to a fair trial was being infringed? Would it not be a huge stretch to also say that these rights should exist to all people- become one of these so-called "human rights"?</p><p>Granted, it's not on the same level as militia machinegunning unarmed villages, but the right to a fair trial is still what I would consider a basic human right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that the defendant in this case is The Pirate Bay does n't change the fact that they deserve a fair trial.If you were on trial for marijuana possession but the judge was a member of dozens of groups with names such as " Stop Drugs Now " , " Weed Killed My Son " , " Christians for a Drug Free America " etc etc , regularly received kickbacks from commercially-run prisons ( who cater specifically to drugs-related incarcerations ) and frequently accepted donations from government anti-legalization lobbyists , would you consider yourself likely to receive a fair trial ? Therefore , following on from this , would you therefore say that your constitutionally protected right to a fair trial was being infringed ?
Would it not be a huge stretch to also say that these rights should exist to all people- become one of these so-called " human rights " ? Granted , it 's not on the same level as militia machinegunning unarmed villages , but the right to a fair trial is still what I would consider a basic human right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that the defendant in this case is The Pirate Bay doesn't change the fact that they deserve a fair trial.If you were on trial for marijuana possession but the judge was a member of dozens of groups with names such as "Stop Drugs Now", "Weed Killed My Son", "Christians for a Drug Free America" etc etc, regularly received kickbacks from commercially-run prisons (who cater specifically to drugs-related incarcerations) and frequently accepted donations from government anti-legalization lobbyists, would you consider yourself likely to receive a fair trial?Therefore, following on from this, would you therefore say that your constitutionally protected right to a fair trial was being infringed?
Would it not be a huge stretch to also say that these rights should exist to all people- become one of these so-called "human rights"?Granted, it's not on the same level as militia machinegunning unarmed villages, but the right to a fair trial is still what I would consider a basic human right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478173</id>
	<title>He's on the board</title>
	<author>WATist</author>
	<datestamp>1245957660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And, I don't think he's there for his own edification either. Plus, is that a paying position?<p><div class="quote"><p> He also sits on the board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property, an advocacy group that pushes stricter copyright laws.  </p><p><div class="quote"></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , I do n't think he 's there for his own edification either .
Plus , is that a paying position ?
He also sits on the board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property , an advocacy group that pushes stricter copyright laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, I don't think he's there for his own edification either.
Plus, is that a paying position?
He also sits on the board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property, an advocacy group that pushes stricter copyright laws.  
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477291</id>
	<title>Re:I can see this happening in the US</title>
	<author>skywire</author>
	<datestamp>1245949800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modders, you don't get it. It's not Funny, it's Insightful. It offers a good analogous scenario, chosen to draw the reader out of his worldview into seeing in a different way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modders , you do n't get it .
It 's not Funny , it 's Insightful .
It offers a good analogous scenario , chosen to draw the reader out of his worldview into seeing in a different way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modders, you don't get it.
It's not Funny, it's Insightful.
It offers a good analogous scenario, chosen to draw the reader out of his worldview into seeing in a different way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475997</id>
	<title>The GPL relies on copyright law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245940260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FSF page specifically says that the GPL assures the copyright of software and protects the rights of the content creator.  So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles?  Does your opposition to copyright mean I can take your GPL code and sell it as a closed-source program?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FSF page specifically says that the GPL assures the copyright of software and protects the rights of the content creator .
So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles ?
Does your opposition to copyright mean I can take your GPL code and sell it as a closed-source program ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FSF page specifically says that the GPL assures the copyright of software and protects the rights of the content creator.
So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles?
Does your opposition to copyright mean I can take your GPL code and sell it as a closed-source program?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28480617</id>
	<title>Re:how did they ever thingk they would win?!</title>
	<author>dwpro</author>
	<datestamp>1246024560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you're wrong.  TPB doesn't "host" it, they link to it.  Like google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 're wrong .
TPB does n't " host " it , they link to it .
Like google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you're wrong.
TPB doesn't "host" it, they link to it.
Like google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475789</id>
	<title>Re:New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>fooslacker</author>
	<datestamp>1245939240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um how so?  I hate the outcome but show me a lack of due process due process.  Again, I may think the outcome was wrong but again they had a trial with the ability to ask for a mistrial for bias and with the ability to appeal when that failed.  I think the decision was biased and bad but I can't really argue that there wasn't/isn't due process.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um how so ?
I hate the outcome but show me a lack of due process due process .
Again , I may think the outcome was wrong but again they had a trial with the ability to ask for a mistrial for bias and with the ability to appeal when that failed .
I think the decision was biased and bad but I ca n't really argue that there was n't/is n't due process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um how so?
I hate the outcome but show me a lack of due process due process.
Again, I may think the outcome was wrong but again they had a trial with the ability to ask for a mistrial for bias and with the ability to appeal when that failed.
I think the decision was biased and bad but I can't really argue that there wasn't/isn't due process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475999</id>
	<title>Re:New Definition of Human Rights</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1245940260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;regularly received kickbacks from commercially-run prisons&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>&lt;quote&gt;juge is against drugs biases him against you having or not having drugs how exactly&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>His taking kickbacks from people who profit from an incarceration is exactly how.  It doesn't matter if a person is guilty or not if the judge makes a profit from a guilty verdict.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>regularly received kickbacks from commercially-run prisonsjuge is against drugs biases him against you having or not having drugs how exactlyHis taking kickbacks from people who profit from an incarceration is exactly how .
It does n't matter if a person is guilty or not if the judge makes a profit from a guilty verdict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>regularly received kickbacks from commercially-run prisonsjuge is against drugs biases him against you having or not having drugs how exactlyHis taking kickbacks from people who profit from an incarceration is exactly how.
It doesn't matter if a person is guilty or not if the judge makes a profit from a guilty verdict.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476329</id>
	<title>CANADA!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245942660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, nobody talked about us for a while.</p><p>Carry on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , nobody talked about us for a while.Carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, nobody talked about us for a while.Carry on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481215</id>
	<title>Re:False dichotomy</title>
	<author>Ioldanach</author>
	<datestamp>1246027020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would amend this by also requiring that distributed works protected by their own device are not covered by copyright, only the device.  As they cannot be read without an external key of some sort, they are circumventing the reasonable terms limit and are therefore failing to uphold that part of the social contract of a copyright.  The works should be protected only by the trade secret and contract law protecting the key itself, and if the key is broken legitimately the works would see no copyright protection.
</p><p>Want to try and restrict user's rights by distributing with macrovision or CSS?  Go ahead, but that distribution goes out without the protection of copyright, just the protection of the technology itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would amend this by also requiring that distributed works protected by their own device are not covered by copyright , only the device .
As they can not be read without an external key of some sort , they are circumventing the reasonable terms limit and are therefore failing to uphold that part of the social contract of a copyright .
The works should be protected only by the trade secret and contract law protecting the key itself , and if the key is broken legitimately the works would see no copyright protection .
Want to try and restrict user 's rights by distributing with macrovision or CSS ?
Go ahead , but that distribution goes out without the protection of copyright , just the protection of the technology itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would amend this by also requiring that distributed works protected by their own device are not covered by copyright, only the device.
As they cannot be read without an external key of some sort, they are circumventing the reasonable terms limit and are therefore failing to uphold that part of the social contract of a copyright.
The works should be protected only by the trade secret and contract law protecting the key itself, and if the key is broken legitimately the works would see no copyright protection.
Want to try and restrict user's rights by distributing with macrovision or CSS?
Go ahead, but that distribution goes out without the protection of copyright, just the protection of the technology itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478691</id>
	<title>Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>leereyno</author>
	<datestamp>1246048680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sick and tired of hearing about this crap.</p><p>They are guilty.  Trying to weasel out based on the fact that the judge wasn't completely blind to the fact that they were guilty is horse shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sick and tired of hearing about this crap.They are guilty .
Trying to weasel out based on the fact that the judge was n't completely blind to the fact that they were guilty is horse shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sick and tired of hearing about this crap.They are guilty.
Trying to weasel out based on the fact that the judge wasn't completely blind to the fact that they were guilty is horse shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28480981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28483371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28479777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28485083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28482265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28486699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28482049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28479621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28479743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28484087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28485981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28480617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_005225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_005225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_005225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475327
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28479743
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475669
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478141
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_005225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_005225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_005225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28479777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28484087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28485083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_005225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_005225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28486699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28480981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28483371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478811
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28485981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28482049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475703
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28479621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477567
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476431
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476813
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481215
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481739
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477883
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28481093
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_005225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28477215
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28480617
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28482265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28476043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_005225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28478649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_005225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_005225.28475283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
