<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_26_1629225</id>
	<title>Another Question Of Search Engine Legality and Infringement</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246039620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Another question of <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090625/1757125363.shtml">search engine "legality"</a> is being addressed with a recent court case in the UK over a video search engine.  Techdirt's coverage questions the long-standing tradition of how to evaluate contributory infringement claims for sites like search engines based on the highly subjective "I know it when I see it" test.  <i>"Take for example, the situation going on in the UK, where Anton Benjamin Vickerman and his wife Kelly-Anne Vickerman decided to do something that makes a lot of sense: create a search engine for videos online, indexing a variety of different sites. This was as a part of their company Scopelight, and the search engine itself was called Surfthechannel. This is certainly a useful product. But, of course, the search engine's algorithm has no way of knowing if that video has been put up by the copyright holder on purpose or if it's unauthorized. Even more tricky, how does it determine fair use? So, it did the reasonable thing: it includes everything. Lots of the videos are legal. Plenty are potentially unauthorized. Apparently that wasn't good enough for a UK-based anti-piracy group UK-FACT, who had Scopelight's premises raided, claiming the site is illegal, since people can find unauthorized content via it. Of course, you can find unauthorized content on Google as well.  But you know who's liable for that? Whoever actually put it online. Not the search engine that pointed you to it."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another question of search engine " legality " is being addressed with a recent court case in the UK over a video search engine .
Techdirt 's coverage questions the long-standing tradition of how to evaluate contributory infringement claims for sites like search engines based on the highly subjective " I know it when I see it " test .
" Take for example , the situation going on in the UK , where Anton Benjamin Vickerman and his wife Kelly-Anne Vickerman decided to do something that makes a lot of sense : create a search engine for videos online , indexing a variety of different sites .
This was as a part of their company Scopelight , and the search engine itself was called Surfthechannel .
This is certainly a useful product .
But , of course , the search engine 's algorithm has no way of knowing if that video has been put up by the copyright holder on purpose or if it 's unauthorized .
Even more tricky , how does it determine fair use ?
So , it did the reasonable thing : it includes everything .
Lots of the videos are legal .
Plenty are potentially unauthorized .
Apparently that was n't good enough for a UK-based anti-piracy group UK-FACT , who had Scopelight 's premises raided , claiming the site is illegal , since people can find unauthorized content via it .
Of course , you can find unauthorized content on Google as well .
But you know who 's liable for that ?
Whoever actually put it online .
Not the search engine that pointed you to it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another question of search engine "legality" is being addressed with a recent court case in the UK over a video search engine.
Techdirt's coverage questions the long-standing tradition of how to evaluate contributory infringement claims for sites like search engines based on the highly subjective "I know it when I see it" test.
"Take for example, the situation going on in the UK, where Anton Benjamin Vickerman and his wife Kelly-Anne Vickerman decided to do something that makes a lot of sense: create a search engine for videos online, indexing a variety of different sites.
This was as a part of their company Scopelight, and the search engine itself was called Surfthechannel.
This is certainly a useful product.
But, of course, the search engine's algorithm has no way of knowing if that video has been put up by the copyright holder on purpose or if it's unauthorized.
Even more tricky, how does it determine fair use?
So, it did the reasonable thing: it includes everything.
Lots of the videos are legal.
Plenty are potentially unauthorized.
Apparently that wasn't good enough for a UK-based anti-piracy group UK-FACT, who had Scopelight's premises raided, claiming the site is illegal, since people can find unauthorized content via it.
Of course, you can find unauthorized content on Google as well.
But you know who's liable for that?
Whoever actually put it online.
Not the search engine that pointed you to it.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486095</id>
	<title>Law enforcement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246044060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems to me that the powers that be have it backward. instead of using technology to enforce the law, they should use it to make the law irrelevant. The internet could have saved us from many laws, but no, they just went and wrote more of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that the powers that be have it backward .
instead of using technology to enforce the law , they should use it to make the law irrelevant .
The internet could have saved us from many laws , but no , they just went and wrote more of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that the powers that be have it backward.
instead of using technology to enforce the law, they should use it to make the law irrelevant.
The internet could have saved us from many laws, but no, they just went and wrote more of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489915</id>
	<title>Re:Search Engines Should Be Legit</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1246020900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Further, the PirateBay goes out of their way to hide filesharers identities.</i></p><p>It's sad how people are more and more assuming that privacy is only important to criminals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , the PirateBay goes out of their way to hide filesharers identities.It 's sad how people are more and more assuming that privacy is only important to criminals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, the PirateBay goes out of their way to hide filesharers identities.It's sad how people are more and more assuming that privacy is only important to criminals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488775</id>
	<title>Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246013220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Data are data so why should it be,<br>That you and I should get along so awfully?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Data are data so why should it be,That you and I should get along so awfully ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data are data so why should it be,That you and I should get along so awfully?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485983</id>
	<title>this is a fundamental flaw in some current law</title>
	<author>jacquesm</author>
	<datestamp>1246043640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In many countries it is now illegal to link to infringing content, it will take the likes of google to be sued before we'll get a real precedent because only they have enough money to take it all the way to the highest courts.</p><p>Linking should be ok, no matter what the content, after all, if you link to one of my sites I can replace the contents of that site after the fact by something that is copyrighted, in no way should an action by me make you liable. This will decide the future of the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In many countries it is now illegal to link to infringing content , it will take the likes of google to be sued before we 'll get a real precedent because only they have enough money to take it all the way to the highest courts.Linking should be ok , no matter what the content , after all , if you link to one of my sites I can replace the contents of that site after the fact by something that is copyrighted , in no way should an action by me make you liable .
This will decide the future of the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many countries it is now illegal to link to infringing content, it will take the likes of google to be sued before we'll get a real precedent because only they have enough money to take it all the way to the highest courts.Linking should be ok, no matter what the content, after all, if you link to one of my sites I can replace the contents of that site after the fact by something that is copyrighted, in no way should an action by me make you liable.
This will decide the future of the web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486741</id>
	<title>Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint</title>
	<author>jonfr</author>
	<datestamp>1246047300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cops need to raid UK-FACT offices. I am sure that they have some shady stuff. Groups like UK-FACT always do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cops need to raid UK-FACT offices .
I am sure that they have some shady stuff .
Groups like UK-FACT always do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cops need to raid UK-FACT offices.
I am sure that they have some shady stuff.
Groups like UK-FACT always do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486353</id>
	<title>one of my fave tools is hounded similarly</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1246045440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a site that uses Google search systems to find music on blogs called <a href="http://chewbone.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">chewbone.</a> [blogspot.com] It's been a great tool for me. I have a few thousand vinyl records I've collected since the early 70s, and a lot of it is really obscure weird shit that never made CD, and I'll be damned if I'm going to piss several thousand hours away digitising it. A few here and there, sure. But not the bulk. So, it's much easier to search and find other people who have done a few and uploaded them. Saves tons of time and effort.
<p>
The problem is, chewbone is regularly slammed by Google for his efforts. Bunch of assholes, IMHO. (chewbone - if you're reading this - hat's off, dude. Thanks!)
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a site that uses Google search systems to find music on blogs called chewbone .
[ blogspot.com ] It 's been a great tool for me .
I have a few thousand vinyl records I 've collected since the early 70s , and a lot of it is really obscure weird shit that never made CD , and I 'll be damned if I 'm going to piss several thousand hours away digitising it .
A few here and there , sure .
But not the bulk .
So , it 's much easier to search and find other people who have done a few and uploaded them .
Saves tons of time and effort .
The problem is , chewbone is regularly slammed by Google for his efforts .
Bunch of assholes , IMHO .
( chewbone - if you 're reading this - hat 's off , dude .
Thanks ! ) RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a site that uses Google search systems to find music on blogs called chewbone.
[blogspot.com] It's been a great tool for me.
I have a few thousand vinyl records I've collected since the early 70s, and a lot of it is really obscure weird shit that never made CD, and I'll be damned if I'm going to piss several thousand hours away digitising it.
A few here and there, sure.
But not the bulk.
So, it's much easier to search and find other people who have done a few and uploaded them.
Saves tons of time and effort.
The problem is, chewbone is regularly slammed by Google for his efforts.
Bunch of assholes, IMHO.
(chewbone - if you're reading this - hat's off, dude.
Thanks!)

RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486277</id>
	<title>Just tellin folks WHERE to get the illegal goodies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246044960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a fee for them of course (in the form of ads I'm sure)</p><p>Getting paid to tell people where to go to easily break the law. What a racket.</p><p>If some creepy guy was lurking on a street corner, trying to sell information on where to go to rape some kidnap victims, would that be ok?</p><p>Since he didn't kidnap them, and he can't actually \_make\_ you rape them, he is a blameless angel, no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a fee for them of course ( in the form of ads I 'm sure ) Getting paid to tell people where to go to easily break the law .
What a racket.If some creepy guy was lurking on a street corner , trying to sell information on where to go to rape some kidnap victims , would that be ok ? Since he did n't kidnap them , and he ca n't actually \ _make \ _ you rape them , he is a blameless angel , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a fee for them of course (in the form of ads I'm sure)Getting paid to tell people where to go to easily break the law.
What a racket.If some creepy guy was lurking on a street corner, trying to sell information on where to go to rape some kidnap victims, would that be ok?Since he didn't kidnap them, and he can't actually \_make\_ you rape them, he is a blameless angel, no?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486803</id>
	<title>Re:So, to draw a parallel</title>
	<author>ZorinLynx</author>
	<datestamp>1246047660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. Way to teach kids how to be honest.</p><p>I wonder what the heck their reasoning was? I suspect they were just personally pissed at you for pointing out their mistake and decided to exact revenge rather than accept that a teenager might be better than them at this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
Way to teach kids how to be honest.I wonder what the heck their reasoning was ?
I suspect they were just personally pissed at you for pointing out their mistake and decided to exact revenge rather than accept that a teenager might be better than them at this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
Way to teach kids how to be honest.I wonder what the heck their reasoning was?
I suspect they were just personally pissed at you for pointing out their mistake and decided to exact revenge rather than accept that a teenager might be better than them at this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487047</id>
	<title>Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1246048860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The way I see it, ignoring the DMCA, only someone downloading should be held responsible. The uploader has no idea if you own a legal copy of something. That should be the downloader's responsibility. If you upload, you are helping others make legitimate backups. If someone abuses that and doesn't own a legitimate copy, they are the only one's that should be prosecuted. On the same line of reasoning, even if you are guilty as a downloader, you don't know if anyone you are uploading to owns a license and should only be liable for your infraction; not the infraction of others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I see it , ignoring the DMCA , only someone downloading should be held responsible .
The uploader has no idea if you own a legal copy of something .
That should be the downloader 's responsibility .
If you upload , you are helping others make legitimate backups .
If someone abuses that and does n't own a legitimate copy , they are the only one 's that should be prosecuted .
On the same line of reasoning , even if you are guilty as a downloader , you do n't know if anyone you are uploading to owns a license and should only be liable for your infraction ; not the infraction of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I see it, ignoring the DMCA, only someone downloading should be held responsible.
The uploader has no idea if you own a legal copy of something.
That should be the downloader's responsibility.
If you upload, you are helping others make legitimate backups.
If someone abuses that and doesn't own a legitimate copy, they are the only one's that should be prosecuted.
On the same line of reasoning, even if you are guilty as a downloader, you don't know if anyone you are uploading to owns a license and should only be liable for your infraction; not the infraction of others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486109</id>
	<title>Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246044120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The defendant was uploading. You don't have to be the original uploader(distributor) just a distributor. And if you aren't leeching your torrent, then you are distributing content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The defendant was uploading .
You do n't have to be the original uploader ( distributor ) just a distributor .
And if you are n't leeching your torrent , then you are distributing content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The defendant was uploading.
You don't have to be the original uploader(distributor) just a distributor.
And if you aren't leeching your torrent, then you are distributing content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486821</id>
	<title>Sad Development</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246047720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I liked Surf the Channel back when it was small and relatively unknown. If I missed a show it was usually the only way I could find it- because sites like Hulu and the official Network sites are blocked to Canadians. So, I could watch the episode and get back to watching the series each week on TV.</p><p>Surf The Channel always made it abundantly clear all over their site that 1) they do not host any videos and 2) you are leaving their site and going to another site and STC was not liable for any 3rd party site's content.</p><p>Sadly, the 'big wigs' apparently learned about STC because slowly but surely all the content that STC linked to was being pulled down from those 3rd party sites. So obviously STC was being used by the industry to find copies of illegal videos then contacting the 3rd party site to make them take it down. For example off sites like MegaVideo.</p><p>Here's the thing. I don't have pay-tv. So, I used to be a fan of Dexter. But now that STC is gone, I will have no way of continuing to watch it. And will I buy the DVD set? Hell no.</p><p>I realize the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd totally gets this and I'm preachng to the choir... but arg! This stupidity can't last forever. I already find my self reluctant to pick up any new series b/c I know that if I miss an episode or two, I'm screwed. I want to watch shows on my own schedule. W/o paying an arm and a leg for cable or satellite and DVR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked Surf the Channel back when it was small and relatively unknown .
If I missed a show it was usually the only way I could find it- because sites like Hulu and the official Network sites are blocked to Canadians .
So , I could watch the episode and get back to watching the series each week on TV.Surf The Channel always made it abundantly clear all over their site that 1 ) they do not host any videos and 2 ) you are leaving their site and going to another site and STC was not liable for any 3rd party site 's content.Sadly , the 'big wigs ' apparently learned about STC because slowly but surely all the content that STC linked to was being pulled down from those 3rd party sites .
So obviously STC was being used by the industry to find copies of illegal videos then contacting the 3rd party site to make them take it down .
For example off sites like MegaVideo.Here 's the thing .
I do n't have pay-tv .
So , I used to be a fan of Dexter .
But now that STC is gone , I will have no way of continuing to watch it .
And will I buy the DVD set ?
Hell no.I realize the / .
crowd totally gets this and I 'm preachng to the choir... but arg !
This stupidity ca n't last forever .
I already find my self reluctant to pick up any new series b/c I know that if I miss an episode or two , I 'm screwed .
I want to watch shows on my own schedule .
W/o paying an arm and a leg for cable or satellite and DVR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked Surf the Channel back when it was small and relatively unknown.
If I missed a show it was usually the only way I could find it- because sites like Hulu and the official Network sites are blocked to Canadians.
So, I could watch the episode and get back to watching the series each week on TV.Surf The Channel always made it abundantly clear all over their site that 1) they do not host any videos and 2) you are leaving their site and going to another site and STC was not liable for any 3rd party site's content.Sadly, the 'big wigs' apparently learned about STC because slowly but surely all the content that STC linked to was being pulled down from those 3rd party sites.
So obviously STC was being used by the industry to find copies of illegal videos then contacting the 3rd party site to make them take it down.
For example off sites like MegaVideo.Here's the thing.
I don't have pay-tv.
So, I used to be a fan of Dexter.
But now that STC is gone, I will have no way of continuing to watch it.
And will I buy the DVD set?
Hell no.I realize the /.
crowd totally gets this and I'm preachng to the choir... but arg!
This stupidity can't last forever.
I already find my self reluctant to pick up any new series b/c I know that if I miss an episode or two, I'm screwed.
I want to watch shows on my own schedule.
W/o paying an arm and a leg for cable or satellite and DVR.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489421</id>
	<title>Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1246017000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no single "first uploader". There are probably around 1000 people who pirated it straight from legitimate media sources and put it up. Then, the stuff spread all over the pirate networks and a few people were still uploading it from wherever they bought it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no single " first uploader " .
There are probably around 1000 people who pirated it straight from legitimate media sources and put it up .
Then , the stuff spread all over the pirate networks and a few people were still uploading it from wherever they bought it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no single "first uploader".
There are probably around 1000 people who pirated it straight from legitimate media sources and put it up.
Then, the stuff spread all over the pirate networks and a few people were still uploading it from wherever they bought it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489583</id>
	<title>Remark</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246018200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This lawsuit is as idiotic as beating up a rescue and search dog for finding a corpse from the rubble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This lawsuit is as idiotic as beating up a rescue and search dog for finding a corpse from the rubble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This lawsuit is as idiotic as beating up a rescue and search dog for finding a corpse from the rubble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487213</id>
	<title>Re:So, to draw a parallel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246049400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody raise your hand who HASN"T done this</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody raise your hand who HASN " T done this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody raise your hand who HASN"T done this</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486275</id>
	<title>Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246044960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>its more like:
 do you blame the road if a replica of the car is built.</htmltext>
<tokenext>its more like : do you blame the road if a replica of the car is built .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its more like:
 do you blame the road if a replica of the car is built.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486413</id>
	<title>Re:So, to draw a parallel</title>
	<author>HelloKitty2</author>
	<datestamp>1246045740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they aren't reporting all the illegal filesharing going on on their site (Such as in your analogy of reporting where the money is), then they are aiding them. You aren't allowed to aid bank robbers in their acts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are n't reporting all the illegal filesharing going on on their site ( Such as in your analogy of reporting where the money is ) , then they are aiding them .
You are n't allowed to aid bank robbers in their acts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they aren't reporting all the illegal filesharing going on on their site (Such as in your analogy of reporting where the money is), then they are aiding them.
You aren't allowed to aid bank robbers in their acts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488209</id>
	<title>Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint</title>
	<author>Crazyswedishguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246010340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>But you know who's liable for that? Whoever actually put it online. Not the search engine that pointed you to it.</p></div><p>That's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/18/227219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">$80,000 per song</a> [slashdot.org] for uploading and distributing it.  Was the defendant the original uploader?  Not even close.</p></div><p>That's really funny you should say that, because your example has nothing to do with TFS.<br> <br>

The point is that in the case you cited, the defendant actually <b>was</b> (allegedly) an uploader. Whether the original or not doesn't matter, she was making those files available for download, and they were being downloaded from her computer. And she could just as well have been sharing/uploading her own CDs, so whether she was the original uploader or not doesn't matter.<br> <br>

My understanding of this situation is that the video search engine doesn't actually serve the material, but links you to where you can download/watch it. This case is a lot more like Pirate Bay, where they provide "links" to the copyrighted material.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you know who 's liable for that ?
Whoever actually put it online .
Not the search engine that pointed you to it.That 's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at $ 80,000 per song [ slashdot.org ] for uploading and distributing it .
Was the defendant the original uploader ?
Not even close.That 's really funny you should say that , because your example has nothing to do with TFS .
The point is that in the case you cited , the defendant actually was ( allegedly ) an uploader .
Whether the original or not does n't matter , she was making those files available for download , and they were being downloaded from her computer .
And she could just as well have been sharing/uploading her own CDs , so whether she was the original uploader or not does n't matter .
My understanding of this situation is that the video search engine does n't actually serve the material , but links you to where you can download/watch it .
This case is a lot more like Pirate Bay , where they provide " links " to the copyrighted material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you know who's liable for that?
Whoever actually put it online.
Not the search engine that pointed you to it.That's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at $80,000 per song [slashdot.org] for uploading and distributing it.
Was the defendant the original uploader?
Not even close.That's really funny you should say that, because your example has nothing to do with TFS.
The point is that in the case you cited, the defendant actually was (allegedly) an uploader.
Whether the original or not doesn't matter, she was making those files available for download, and they were being downloaded from her computer.
And she could just as well have been sharing/uploading her own CDs, so whether she was the original uploader or not doesn't matter.
My understanding of this situation is that the video search engine doesn't actually serve the material, but links you to where you can download/watch it.
This case is a lot more like Pirate Bay, where they provide "links" to the copyrighted material.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487377</id>
	<title>Re:this is a fundamental flaw in some current law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246049940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first hit for "music pirate" is thepiratebay.org</p><p>Is that good enough?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first hit for " music pirate " is thepiratebay.orgIs that good enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first hit for "music pirate" is thepiratebay.orgIs that good enough?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486715</id>
	<title>Re:Just tellin folks WHERE to get the illegal good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246047180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, your argument isn't sound.
<br> <br>
Because this isn't some creepy dude telling where to rape some kidnap victims.  This is more like a machine that tells you when and where the next public illegal viewing of a movie is gonna be, most likely in your home, and then a company sues the creator of the machine for showing everyone where these events are being held.  It seems kind of petty to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , your argument is n't sound .
Because this is n't some creepy dude telling where to rape some kidnap victims .
This is more like a machine that tells you when and where the next public illegal viewing of a movie is gon na be , most likely in your home , and then a company sues the creator of the machine for showing everyone where these events are being held .
It seems kind of petty to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, your argument isn't sound.
Because this isn't some creepy dude telling where to rape some kidnap victims.
This is more like a machine that tells you when and where the next public illegal viewing of a movie is gonna be, most likely in your home, and then a company sues the creator of the machine for showing everyone where these events are being held.
It seems kind of petty to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487461</id>
	<title>Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1246007040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Odd.  You make the point that copyright law is fubar'd.  You quite reasonably point out that Jammie Thomas is probably guilty of something.  We can agree that much.  But, you seem to see little problem with Jammie, and people like her, being prosecuted under law that is fucked up beyond all recognition.  Odd.</p><p>My attitude is, if the law is wrong, then no one can be guilty of violating that law.</p><p>If I may draw a parallel between the legal system, and the military?</p><p>A leader never issues an order that he knows will be disobeyed.  The recent (two year old?) story about a transport captain who ordered a convoy, knowing full well that the convoy wouldn't follow orders, is more guilty than those individuals who refused the orders.  He is an incompetent, and ineffective leader.</p><p>Here, we have an entire body of law that the entire world scoffs at.</p><p>Who is guilty?  Jammie?  I hardly think so.  I say, fix the law, then chase the real criminals.</p><p>Oh.  Wait.  Many of the real criminals wear suits, and prop their feet up on desks in penthouse offices.  That wouldn't work, would it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd .
You make the point that copyright law is fubar 'd .
You quite reasonably point out that Jammie Thomas is probably guilty of something .
We can agree that much .
But , you seem to see little problem with Jammie , and people like her , being prosecuted under law that is fucked up beyond all recognition .
Odd.My attitude is , if the law is wrong , then no one can be guilty of violating that law.If I may draw a parallel between the legal system , and the military ? A leader never issues an order that he knows will be disobeyed .
The recent ( two year old ?
) story about a transport captain who ordered a convoy , knowing full well that the convoy would n't follow orders , is more guilty than those individuals who refused the orders .
He is an incompetent , and ineffective leader.Here , we have an entire body of law that the entire world scoffs at.Who is guilty ?
Jammie ? I hardly think so .
I say , fix the law , then chase the real criminals.Oh .
Wait. Many of the real criminals wear suits , and prop their feet up on desks in penthouse offices .
That would n't work , would it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd.
You make the point that copyright law is fubar'd.
You quite reasonably point out that Jammie Thomas is probably guilty of something.
We can agree that much.
But, you seem to see little problem with Jammie, and people like her, being prosecuted under law that is fucked up beyond all recognition.
Odd.My attitude is, if the law is wrong, then no one can be guilty of violating that law.If I may draw a parallel between the legal system, and the military?A leader never issues an order that he knows will be disobeyed.
The recent (two year old?
) story about a transport captain who ordered a convoy, knowing full well that the convoy wouldn't follow orders, is more guilty than those individuals who refused the orders.
He is an incompetent, and ineffective leader.Here, we have an entire body of law that the entire world scoffs at.Who is guilty?
Jammie?  I hardly think so.
I say, fix the law, then chase the real criminals.Oh.
Wait.  Many of the real criminals wear suits, and prop their feet up on desks in penthouse offices.
That wouldn't work, would it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486107</id>
	<title>Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint</title>
	<author>Freetardo Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1246044120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at $80,000 per song for uploading and distributing it. Was the defendant the original uploader? Not even close.</p> </div><p>Actually Jammie Thomas was the original uploader.  She ripped her CDs and then made them available on P2P.  Secondly, that wasn't the creation of any precedent, that was just the jury applying current statues when it comes to copyright infringement (and it's not even the statutory maximum).  Thirdly, Jammie Thomas is nothing but a guilty liar and her and anyone who supports her are just making it harder for those of us who try to make a legitimate case against the DMCA and current copyright laws. Finally, exactly what does a US trial and US statutes have to do with the UK?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at $ 80,000 per song for uploading and distributing it .
Was the defendant the original uploader ?
Not even close .
Actually Jammie Thomas was the original uploader .
She ripped her CDs and then made them available on P2P .
Secondly , that was n't the creation of any precedent , that was just the jury applying current statues when it comes to copyright infringement ( and it 's not even the statutory maximum ) .
Thirdly , Jammie Thomas is nothing but a guilty liar and her and anyone who supports her are just making it harder for those of us who try to make a legitimate case against the DMCA and current copyright laws .
Finally , exactly what does a US trial and US statutes have to do with the UK ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at $80,000 per song for uploading and distributing it.
Was the defendant the original uploader?
Not even close.
Actually Jammie Thomas was the original uploader.
She ripped her CDs and then made them available on P2P.
Secondly, that wasn't the creation of any precedent, that was just the jury applying current statues when it comes to copyright infringement (and it's not even the statutory maximum).
Thirdly, Jammie Thomas is nothing but a guilty liar and her and anyone who supports her are just making it harder for those of us who try to make a legitimate case against the DMCA and current copyright laws.
Finally, exactly what does a US trial and US statutes have to do with the UK?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487383</id>
	<title>Re:Just tellin folks WHERE to get the illegal good</title>
	<author>2short</author>
	<datestamp>1246049940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's like if you ask me if I've seen a guy in a red hat and I tell you.  I haven't any idea who the guy in the red hat is.  You brother?  Your shrink?  Should I be arrested because he might be your drug dealer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's like if you ask me if I 've seen a guy in a red hat and I tell you .
I have n't any idea who the guy in the red hat is .
You brother ?
Your shrink ?
Should I be arrested because he might be your drug dealer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's like if you ask me if I've seen a guy in a red hat and I tell you.
I haven't any idea who the guy in the red hat is.
You brother?
Your shrink?
Should I be arrested because he might be your drug dealer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486387</id>
	<title>Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246045560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The legal situation should all become clearer in another 10 years or so. It always takes a long time for a legal system to adjust to new technology. The US had many years of legal uncertainties (and musician labor unrest) when the first sound recordings became available. So you can expect grossly inconsistent decisions from courts in different jurisdictions especially across national boundaries. This of course is not much comfort if you are on the losing end of one these court cases</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The legal situation should all become clearer in another 10 years or so .
It always takes a long time for a legal system to adjust to new technology .
The US had many years of legal uncertainties ( and musician labor unrest ) when the first sound recordings became available .
So you can expect grossly inconsistent decisions from courts in different jurisdictions especially across national boundaries .
This of course is not much comfort if you are on the losing end of one these court cases</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The legal situation should all become clearer in another 10 years or so.
It always takes a long time for a legal system to adjust to new technology.
The US had many years of legal uncertainties (and musician labor unrest) when the first sound recordings became available.
So you can expect grossly inconsistent decisions from courts in different jurisdictions especially across national boundaries.
This of course is not much comfort if you are on the losing end of one these court cases</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488635</id>
	<title>Media as we knew it is dead</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1246012380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> The internet is a interesting and powerful tool. It has changed the way we look at the distribution of information. Laws are being applied to concepts that are to young. There are growing pains. Unfortunately, the government is listening to companies instead of individuals. There are abusive laws that prop these companies up. I think that copyrights are dead since the cost of transference has been reduced to near zero. Artists must say its frustrating to hear this. I don't understand why though.</p><p> How much do they make an album?</p><p> Most of the money from sales goes to the company for distributing the material. I ask you then, why does a song cost 1.99(or whatever it is now). The cost of producing is held by the author who makes like 10 cents(I might be wrong) from the sale. The other 1.79 goes into distributing the song and a tidy 1.50 profit for the company distributing the song(I don't know the actual numbers). This is absurd. Without copyright this industry would not exist. The DMCA is the only thing keeping this industry viable. If the authors went solo they could easily make money off of advertisements and donations.</p><p> What about videos and such? </p><p> That would be the only part of the industry that would survive as it doesn't rely on copyright management. There would be restructuring. Concerts would still happen. There would still be merchandise to be made. These services rely on the limitations that can be imposed without managing copyright(material or space). The extra leg work could easily be accomplished by a manager or the author themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is a interesting and powerful tool .
It has changed the way we look at the distribution of information .
Laws are being applied to concepts that are to young .
There are growing pains .
Unfortunately , the government is listening to companies instead of individuals .
There are abusive laws that prop these companies up .
I think that copyrights are dead since the cost of transference has been reduced to near zero .
Artists must say its frustrating to hear this .
I do n't understand why though .
How much do they make an album ?
Most of the money from sales goes to the company for distributing the material .
I ask you then , why does a song cost 1.99 ( or whatever it is now ) .
The cost of producing is held by the author who makes like 10 cents ( I might be wrong ) from the sale .
The other 1.79 goes into distributing the song and a tidy 1.50 profit for the company distributing the song ( I do n't know the actual numbers ) .
This is absurd .
Without copyright this industry would not exist .
The DMCA is the only thing keeping this industry viable .
If the authors went solo they could easily make money off of advertisements and donations .
What about videos and such ?
That would be the only part of the industry that would survive as it does n't rely on copyright management .
There would be restructuring .
Concerts would still happen .
There would still be merchandise to be made .
These services rely on the limitations that can be imposed without managing copyright ( material or space ) .
The extra leg work could easily be accomplished by a manager or the author themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The internet is a interesting and powerful tool.
It has changed the way we look at the distribution of information.
Laws are being applied to concepts that are to young.
There are growing pains.
Unfortunately, the government is listening to companies instead of individuals.
There are abusive laws that prop these companies up.
I think that copyrights are dead since the cost of transference has been reduced to near zero.
Artists must say its frustrating to hear this.
I don't understand why though.
How much do they make an album?
Most of the money from sales goes to the company for distributing the material.
I ask you then, why does a song cost 1.99(or whatever it is now).
The cost of producing is held by the author who makes like 10 cents(I might be wrong) from the sale.
The other 1.79 goes into distributing the song and a tidy 1.50 profit for the company distributing the song(I don't know the actual numbers).
This is absurd.
Without copyright this industry would not exist.
The DMCA is the only thing keeping this industry viable.
If the authors went solo they could easily make money off of advertisements and donations.
What about videos and such?
That would be the only part of the industry that would survive as it doesn't rely on copyright management.
There would be restructuring.
Concerts would still happen.
There would still be merchandise to be made.
These services rely on the limitations that can be imposed without managing copyright(material or space).
The extra leg work could easily be accomplished by a manager or the author themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486393</id>
	<title>Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246045620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>/me puts on grammar Nazi hat.</i>
Data <b>are</b> Data.<nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>/me takes off grammar Nazi hat.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>/me puts on grammar Nazi hat .
Data are Data .
/me takes off grammar Nazi hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/me puts on grammar Nazi hat.
Data are Data.
/me takes off grammar Nazi hat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488527</id>
	<title>Re:Just tellin folks WHERE to get the illegal good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246011660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The AC who made this post is an obvious RIAA / MPAA shill. But he really showed us a glimpse of the truth, of how these despicable organizations actually think. They really actually think that copying their movies is as bad as raping kidnap victims. Man, these people are twisted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The AC who made this post is an obvious RIAA / MPAA shill .
But he really showed us a glimpse of the truth , of how these despicable organizations actually think .
They really actually think that copying their movies is as bad as raping kidnap victims .
Man , these people are twisted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AC who made this post is an obvious RIAA / MPAA shill.
But he really showed us a glimpse of the truth, of how these despicable organizations actually think.
They really actually think that copying their movies is as bad as raping kidnap victims.
Man, these people are twisted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486395</id>
	<title>Re:Just tellin folks WHERE to get the illegal good</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1246045620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't discriminate in favor of illegal content, you ask them where to find such-and-such and they give you a list of websites that list it as part of their content. This could be used as a tool by those who legitimately hold the copyright to find those who post their content online without their permission, but they would rather just shut it down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't discriminate in favor of illegal content , you ask them where to find such-and-such and they give you a list of websites that list it as part of their content .
This could be used as a tool by those who legitimately hold the copyright to find those who post their content online without their permission , but they would rather just shut it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't discriminate in favor of illegal content, you ask them where to find such-and-such and they give you a list of websites that list it as part of their content.
This could be used as a tool by those who legitimately hold the copyright to find those who post their content online without their permission, but they would rather just shut it down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486471</id>
	<title>Re:So, to draw a parallel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246046040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boy that sounds like a bad thing. Of course they might have wondered what you were doing when you found it.</p><p>My best (was in high school, working as "free labor" on computer stuff class) - Windows SMB file share, across internet to school web site, generic student username/password, could add files from home(and delete the one I created). Pointed this out the next day to our contact person (about the highest school person in the tech chain, he could get it in the right direction) and after explaining 2 times he understood what I was saying. Got it fixed (or at least I didn't see any more SMB access )</p><p>Other fun thing with that school district.  State sponsored the internet link and had a MRTG graph of in and out bandwidth.  I would look at it every once in a while.  Mid March (maybe it was May) my senior year saw a huge constant outbound traffic.  Brought to their attention, heard nothing more.  Found out in June they (school) took down their web site because some foreign company was hosting stuff on it. I wondered if it was in June they noticed, or June they decided to act (because school was out).</p><p>Or the student file server(for which every one had a username/password), the papers showing how to log in was for a live account.(s12345) (Don't know if it was for a actual student, or if they just did a generic s[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] creation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boy that sounds like a bad thing .
Of course they might have wondered what you were doing when you found it.My best ( was in high school , working as " free labor " on computer stuff class ) - Windows SMB file share , across internet to school web site , generic student username/password , could add files from home ( and delete the one I created ) .
Pointed this out the next day to our contact person ( about the highest school person in the tech chain , he could get it in the right direction ) and after explaining 2 times he understood what I was saying .
Got it fixed ( or at least I did n't see any more SMB access ) Other fun thing with that school district .
State sponsored the internet link and had a MRTG graph of in and out bandwidth .
I would look at it every once in a while .
Mid March ( maybe it was May ) my senior year saw a huge constant outbound traffic .
Brought to their attention , heard nothing more .
Found out in June they ( school ) took down their web site because some foreign company was hosting stuff on it .
I wondered if it was in June they noticed , or June they decided to act ( because school was out ) .Or the student file server ( for which every one had a username/password ) , the papers showing how to log in was for a live account .
( s12345 ) ( Do n't know if it was for a actual student , or if they just did a generic s [ 0-9 ] [ 0-9 ] [ 0-9 ] [ 0-9 ] [ 0-9 ] creation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boy that sounds like a bad thing.
Of course they might have wondered what you were doing when you found it.My best (was in high school, working as "free labor" on computer stuff class) - Windows SMB file share, across internet to school web site, generic student username/password, could add files from home(and delete the one I created).
Pointed this out the next day to our contact person (about the highest school person in the tech chain, he could get it in the right direction) and after explaining 2 times he understood what I was saying.
Got it fixed (or at least I didn't see any more SMB access )Other fun thing with that school district.
State sponsored the internet link and had a MRTG graph of in and out bandwidth.
I would look at it every once in a while.
Mid March (maybe it was May) my senior year saw a huge constant outbound traffic.
Brought to their attention, heard nothing more.
Found out in June they (school) took down their web site because some foreign company was hosting stuff on it.
I wondered if it was in June they noticed, or June they decided to act (because school was out).Or the student file server(for which every one had a username/password), the papers showing how to log in was for a live account.
(s12345) (Don't know if it was for a actual student, or if they just did a generic s[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] creation).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935</id>
	<title>Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246043400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>

At least for America, this blogger simply holds a different viewpoint of how things should be from the content lawyer lobbyists and the court system they control.<p><div class="quote"><p>But you know who's liable for that? Whoever actually put it online. Not the search engine that pointed you to it.</p> </div><p>That's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/18/227219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">$80,000 per song</a> [slashdot.org] for uploading and distributing it.  Was the defendant the original uploader?  Not even close.  <br> <br>

And you know what?  Through both those trials, I am unaware of any action taken to track down the initial uploader of those files.  Maybe because doing so is futile.  But it might also be that the legal system here (and also in Sweden apparently) views association of diseminating information about pirating as a more problematic and evil crime than the actual act of you pirating it for yourself!  <br> <br>

This is a complex process of getting copyrighted material to you.  Someone has to buy it, encode it, upload it, it gets seeded or whatever, you search for it, you download it, you execute it, you re-upload it, ad nauseum.  And at any point in that chain, these people are not afraid to prosecute you.  And, like some sort of pyramid scheme, you collect all the sins of those in the chain before you.  And you pay, oh yes, my brethren, you pay dearly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least for America , this blogger simply holds a different viewpoint of how things should be from the content lawyer lobbyists and the court system they control.But you know who 's liable for that ?
Whoever actually put it online .
Not the search engine that pointed you to it .
That 's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at $ 80,000 per song [ slashdot.org ] for uploading and distributing it .
Was the defendant the original uploader ?
Not even close .
And you know what ?
Through both those trials , I am unaware of any action taken to track down the initial uploader of those files .
Maybe because doing so is futile .
But it might also be that the legal system here ( and also in Sweden apparently ) views association of diseminating information about pirating as a more problematic and evil crime than the actual act of you pirating it for yourself !
This is a complex process of getting copyrighted material to you .
Someone has to buy it , encode it , upload it , it gets seeded or whatever , you search for it , you download it , you execute it , you re-upload it , ad nauseum .
And at any point in that chain , these people are not afraid to prosecute you .
And , like some sort of pyramid scheme , you collect all the sins of those in the chain before you .
And you pay , oh yes , my brethren , you pay dearly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

At least for America, this blogger simply holds a different viewpoint of how things should be from the content lawyer lobbyists and the court system they control.But you know who's liable for that?
Whoever actually put it online.
Not the search engine that pointed you to it.
That's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at $80,000 per song [slashdot.org] for uploading and distributing it.
Was the defendant the original uploader?
Not even close.
And you know what?
Through both those trials, I am unaware of any action taken to track down the initial uploader of those files.
Maybe because doing so is futile.
But it might also be that the legal system here (and also in Sweden apparently) views association of diseminating information about pirating as a more problematic and evil crime than the actual act of you pirating it for yourself!
This is a complex process of getting copyrighted material to you.
Someone has to buy it, encode it, upload it, it gets seeded or whatever, you search for it, you download it, you execute it, you re-upload it, ad nauseum.
And at any point in that chain, these people are not afraid to prosecute you.
And, like some sort of pyramid scheme, you collect all the sins of those in the chain before you.
And you pay, oh yes, my brethren, you pay dearly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489829</id>
	<title>Re:So, to draw a parallel</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1246020240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just listing the contents of a folder (without opening the files themselves) is hardly comparable to stealing stuff, and being suspended for that is moronic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just listing the contents of a folder ( without opening the files themselves ) is hardly comparable to stealing stuff , and being suspended for that is moronic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just listing the contents of a folder (without opening the files themselves) is hardly comparable to stealing stuff, and being suspended for that is moronic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486163</id>
	<title>Re:So, to draw a parallel</title>
	<author>Freetardo Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1246044360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since this is a false analogy, no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this is a false analogy , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this is a false analogy, no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487443</id>
	<title>Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246006920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Data is collected. Data is stored. Data is Data.</p></div><p>Quite off topic, but is anybody else glad it's now okay to use data as a singular noun? "Data are collected. Data are stored. Data are Data." just seems awkward.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Data is collected .
Data is stored .
Data is Data.Quite off topic , but is anybody else glad it 's now okay to use data as a singular noun ?
" Data are collected .
Data are stored .
Data are Data .
" just seems awkward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data is collected.
Data is stored.
Data is Data.Quite off topic, but is anybody else glad it's now okay to use data as a singular noun?
"Data are collected.
Data are stored.
Data are Data.
" just seems awkward.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486633</id>
	<title>How to shoot yourself in the foot</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1246046760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd think that publishers and other copyright holders would want to encourage search sites.  After all, they let you find your own work quickly, so you can easily go after the actual infringers.</p><p>Trying to shut down search sites for copyright infringement is a good example of why the phrase "shooting yourself in the foot" was invented.  Why would you want to shut down the sites that are fingering infringers in such a convenient manner?  Do you really want to build your own search engine, then buy a flock of machines and pay a support staff who would just be duplicating what the googlebots and other such search tools are already doing for you at no charge?</p><p>This has gotta be one of the dumbest ideas in the whole stupid copyright battle.  And that's saying a lot, considering all the other dumb ideas that are being put online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think that publishers and other copyright holders would want to encourage search sites .
After all , they let you find your own work quickly , so you can easily go after the actual infringers.Trying to shut down search sites for copyright infringement is a good example of why the phrase " shooting yourself in the foot " was invented .
Why would you want to shut down the sites that are fingering infringers in such a convenient manner ?
Do you really want to build your own search engine , then buy a flock of machines and pay a support staff who would just be duplicating what the googlebots and other such search tools are already doing for you at no charge ? This has got ta be one of the dumbest ideas in the whole stupid copyright battle .
And that 's saying a lot , considering all the other dumb ideas that are being put online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think that publishers and other copyright holders would want to encourage search sites.
After all, they let you find your own work quickly, so you can easily go after the actual infringers.Trying to shut down search sites for copyright infringement is a good example of why the phrase "shooting yourself in the foot" was invented.
Why would you want to shut down the sites that are fingering infringers in such a convenient manner?
Do you really want to build your own search engine, then buy a flock of machines and pay a support staff who would just be duplicating what the googlebots and other such search tools are already doing for you at no charge?This has gotta be one of the dumbest ideas in the whole stupid copyright battle.
And that's saying a lot, considering all the other dumb ideas that are being put online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486189</id>
	<title>Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen?</title>
	<author>networkconsultant</author>
	<datestamp>1246044480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How dare you profit from somone else's privaterring!</htmltext>
<tokenext>How dare you profit from somone else 's privaterring !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How dare you profit from somone else's privaterring!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963</id>
	<title>So, to draw a parallel</title>
	<author>kick6</author>
	<datestamp>1246043580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I show the cops were the bank robbers are stashing the money, I'm guilty of robbing the bank?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I show the cops were the bank robbers are stashing the money , I 'm guilty of robbing the bank ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I show the cops were the bank robbers are stashing the money, I'm guilty of robbing the bank?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487085</id>
	<title>Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint</title>
	<author>serutan</author>
	<datestamp>1246048980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion the whole association between search engines and "contributory infringement" is smoke and mirrors. If the yellow pages gives the address of a pawn shop, do they share the guilt if the shop sells stolen property? No. If Flickr shows a photo of a fruit stand with racks of fruit out in front of the store, do they share the guilt when somebody runs by and snatches fruit off the rack? No. Does Google Maps share the guilt if they show a Ferrari parked out on the street and somebody steals the Ferrari? Hell the Fuck No. Information that can be used to commit crimes is all over the place and always has been. The information has never been the crime and never has been. Contributory infringement isn't a legal principle, it's an extortion tactic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion the whole association between search engines and " contributory infringement " is smoke and mirrors .
If the yellow pages gives the address of a pawn shop , do they share the guilt if the shop sells stolen property ?
No. If Flickr shows a photo of a fruit stand with racks of fruit out in front of the store , do they share the guilt when somebody runs by and snatches fruit off the rack ?
No. Does Google Maps share the guilt if they show a Ferrari parked out on the street and somebody steals the Ferrari ?
Hell the Fuck No .
Information that can be used to commit crimes is all over the place and always has been .
The information has never been the crime and never has been .
Contributory infringement is n't a legal principle , it 's an extortion tactic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion the whole association between search engines and "contributory infringement" is smoke and mirrors.
If the yellow pages gives the address of a pawn shop, do they share the guilt if the shop sells stolen property?
No. If Flickr shows a photo of a fruit stand with racks of fruit out in front of the store, do they share the guilt when somebody runs by and snatches fruit off the rack?
No. Does Google Maps share the guilt if they show a Ferrari parked out on the street and somebody steals the Ferrari?
Hell the Fuck No.
Information that can be used to commit crimes is all over the place and always has been.
The information has never been the crime and never has been.
Contributory infringement isn't a legal principle, it's an extortion tactic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28490469</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246026480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Investigations by FACT suggested the claimant company and its owners, Anton Benjamin Vickerman and Kelly-Anne Vickerman,a married couple from Gateshead, were hosting internet sites from which copyrighted material was being downloaded. Northumbria Police applied for a section 8 warrant under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) to search the claimants&#226;(TM) premises, resulting in 31 items of property being seized, including the computer towers and servers. The force handed some items to FACT.<br>By 12 December 2008, the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to prosecute. The force notified the claimants of this, indicating that the property could be returned.All property subsequently came into FACT&#226;(TM)s possession. Following the CPS decision, FACT decided to bring a private criminal prosecution.<br>On 22 January 2009, the claimants began proceedings for return of the property and damages for conversion. A day later, FACT alerted the force of its decision to bring a private prosecution. On 28 January, the claimant applied for an interim order for delivery of the property, which Mrs Justice Sharp granted. On 12 February, FACT began the private prosecution.</p><p>THE DECISION</p><p>The defendants argued that once the property was lawfully seized for the purposes of a criminal investigation, it was immaterial whether any subsequent prosecution was undertaken by the CPS or FACT, as long as the material was retained for use as evidence in connection with the alleged offence. The claimants argued that the private actions of people and bodies form no part of the police service&#226;(TM)s functions. So once the CPS decided not to prosecute, retaining the property to assist FACT in its private prosecution fell outside the scope of PACE.<br>On 7th May, at the High Court, Mrs Justice Sharp agreed with the claimants. While acknowledging that the force had a duty to prevent crime, those powers were not unlimited. The judge observed that there was &#226;an obvious distinction between what may be desirable in a particular case, and what is permissible as a matter of law&#226;(TM)</p><p>COMMENT</p><p>While a disappointment for FACT, this decision draws a clear line between interference with private property for public purposes under PACE and the prosecution of private interests.</p><p>source: http://surfthechannel.wordpress.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Investigations by FACT suggested the claimant company and its owners , Anton Benjamin Vickerman and Kelly-Anne Vickerman,a married couple from Gateshead , were hosting internet sites from which copyrighted material was being downloaded .
Northumbria Police applied for a section 8 warrant under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ( PACE ) to search the claimants   ( TM ) premises , resulting in 31 items of property being seized , including the computer towers and servers .
The force handed some items to FACT.By 12 December 2008 , the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to prosecute .
The force notified the claimants of this , indicating that the property could be returned.All property subsequently came into FACT   ( TM ) s possession .
Following the CPS decision , FACT decided to bring a private criminal prosecution.On 22 January 2009 , the claimants began proceedings for return of the property and damages for conversion .
A day later , FACT alerted the force of its decision to bring a private prosecution .
On 28 January , the claimant applied for an interim order for delivery of the property , which Mrs Justice Sharp granted .
On 12 February , FACT began the private prosecution.THE DECISIONThe defendants argued that once the property was lawfully seized for the purposes of a criminal investigation , it was immaterial whether any subsequent prosecution was undertaken by the CPS or FACT , as long as the material was retained for use as evidence in connection with the alleged offence .
The claimants argued that the private actions of people and bodies form no part of the police service   ( TM ) s functions .
So once the CPS decided not to prosecute , retaining the property to assist FACT in its private prosecution fell outside the scope of PACE.On 7th May , at the High Court , Mrs Justice Sharp agreed with the claimants .
While acknowledging that the force had a duty to prevent crime , those powers were not unlimited .
The judge observed that there was   an obvious distinction between what may be desirable in a particular case , and what is permissible as a matter of law   ( TM ) COMMENTWhile a disappointment for FACT , this decision draws a clear line between interference with private property for public purposes under PACE and the prosecution of private interests.source : http : //surfthechannel.wordpress.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Investigations by FACT suggested the claimant company and its owners, Anton Benjamin Vickerman and Kelly-Anne Vickerman,a married couple from Gateshead, were hosting internet sites from which copyrighted material was being downloaded.
Northumbria Police applied for a section 8 warrant under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) to search the claimantsâ(TM) premises, resulting in 31 items of property being seized, including the computer towers and servers.
The force handed some items to FACT.By 12 December 2008, the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to prosecute.
The force notified the claimants of this, indicating that the property could be returned.All property subsequently came into FACTâ(TM)s possession.
Following the CPS decision, FACT decided to bring a private criminal prosecution.On 22 January 2009, the claimants began proceedings for return of the property and damages for conversion.
A day later, FACT alerted the force of its decision to bring a private prosecution.
On 28 January, the claimant applied for an interim order for delivery of the property, which Mrs Justice Sharp granted.
On 12 February, FACT began the private prosecution.THE DECISIONThe defendants argued that once the property was lawfully seized for the purposes of a criminal investigation, it was immaterial whether any subsequent prosecution was undertaken by the CPS or FACT, as long as the material was retained for use as evidence in connection with the alleged offence.
The claimants argued that the private actions of people and bodies form no part of the police serviceâ(TM)s functions.
So once the CPS decided not to prosecute, retaining the property to assist FACT in its private prosecution fell outside the scope of PACE.On 7th May, at the High Court, Mrs Justice Sharp agreed with the claimants.
While acknowledging that the force had a duty to prevent crime, those powers were not unlimited.
The judge observed that there was âan obvious distinction between what may be desirable in a particular case, and what is permissible as a matter of lawâ(TM)COMMENTWhile a disappointment for FACT, this decision draws a clear line between interference with private property for public purposes under PACE and the prosecution of private interests.source: http://surfthechannel.wordpress.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487321</id>
	<title>DMCA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246049760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10 years ago the US Congress had the foresight to pass the <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html#d" title="cornell.edu">DMCA</a> [cornell.edu] which protects search engines, ISP caches, and similar technologies from this kind of nonsense.  Too bad other nations haven't followed the USA's lead in this respect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 years ago the US Congress had the foresight to pass the DMCA [ cornell.edu ] which protects search engines , ISP caches , and similar technologies from this kind of nonsense .
Too bad other nations have n't followed the USA 's lead in this respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 years ago the US Congress had the foresight to pass the DMCA [cornell.edu] which protects search engines, ISP caches, and similar technologies from this kind of nonsense.
Too bad other nations haven't followed the USA's lead in this respect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486311</id>
	<title>Re:So, to draw a parallel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246045140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An analogy that better fits this case would be if you gave bank robbers directions to the bank.  It's really not that hard<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An analogy that better fits this case would be if you gave bank robbers directions to the bank .
It 's really not that hard .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An analogy that better fits this case would be if you gave bank robbers directions to the bank.
It's really not that hard ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486357</id>
	<title>If it wasn't for [REDACTED]-[REDACTED]</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1246045440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it wasn't for [REDACTED]-[REDACTED]'s actions I'd have never heard of this [REDACTED] search. So really, [REDACTED]-[REDACTED] just indexed an illegal service for me and should now have their own premises raided.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was n't for [ REDACTED ] - [ REDACTED ] 's actions I 'd have never heard of this [ REDACTED ] search .
So really , [ REDACTED ] - [ REDACTED ] just indexed an illegal service for me and should now have their own premises raided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it wasn't for [REDACTED]-[REDACTED]'s actions I'd have never heard of this [REDACTED] search.
So really, [REDACTED]-[REDACTED] just indexed an illegal service for me and should now have their own premises raided.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488853</id>
	<title>Re:So, to draw a parallel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246013580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In HS I showed out net admin that I could access anyone's private doc folder - across multiple campuses.  I wasn't <i>caught</i>, I explicitly showed it to the proper authorities.  I got suspended and my computer privileges revoked.</p></div><p>Did you "show" it by doing it, or "show" it by laying out how a hypothetical someone might do it, strictly in theory mind you, if they chose to do so.</p><p>If it was against your school's policy to access another users folder and you did so, then you deserved to be punished.  It doesn't matter what your intentions were or who you demonstrated the infraction for.  Rules are rules and breaking them to prove how easily they can be broken is still breaking them.</p><p>There is a big difference between telling someone that they left their garage door wide open to thieves it and committing burglary to prove the point (even if you were, like, totally going to return the stuff after they got your informative and well-meaning message).  In the former case, they thank you or tell you to buzz off and you both go about your business.  In the later case the police get involved.</p><p>A lot of you</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In HS I showed out net admin that I could access anyone 's private doc folder - across multiple campuses .
I was n't caught , I explicitly showed it to the proper authorities .
I got suspended and my computer privileges revoked.Did you " show " it by doing it , or " show " it by laying out how a hypothetical someone might do it , strictly in theory mind you , if they chose to do so.If it was against your school 's policy to access another users folder and you did so , then you deserved to be punished .
It does n't matter what your intentions were or who you demonstrated the infraction for .
Rules are rules and breaking them to prove how easily they can be broken is still breaking them.There is a big difference between telling someone that they left their garage door wide open to thieves it and committing burglary to prove the point ( even if you were , like , totally going to return the stuff after they got your informative and well-meaning message ) .
In the former case , they thank you or tell you to buzz off and you both go about your business .
In the later case the police get involved.A lot of you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In HS I showed out net admin that I could access anyone's private doc folder - across multiple campuses.
I wasn't caught, I explicitly showed it to the proper authorities.
I got suspended and my computer privileges revoked.Did you "show" it by doing it, or "show" it by laying out how a hypothetical someone might do it, strictly in theory mind you, if they chose to do so.If it was against your school's policy to access another users folder and you did so, then you deserved to be punished.
It doesn't matter what your intentions were or who you demonstrated the infraction for.
Rules are rules and breaking them to prove how easily they can be broken is still breaking them.There is a big difference between telling someone that they left their garage door wide open to thieves it and committing burglary to prove the point (even if you were, like, totally going to return the stuff after they got your informative and well-meaning message).
In the former case, they thank you or tell you to buzz off and you both go about your business.
In the later case the police get involved.A lot of you
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489229</id>
	<title>Re:So, to draw a parallel</title>
	<author>don.g</author>
	<datestamp>1246015800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good old high schools.  I showed the teacher who set up our intranet how the password-protection (done via client side JavaScript) could be bypassed.  I didn't get in trouble, and they didn't bother improving it; I think the claim was that those pages weren't especially secret and that students who could "break in" were somewhat rare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good old high schools .
I showed the teacher who set up our intranet how the password-protection ( done via client side JavaScript ) could be bypassed .
I did n't get in trouble , and they did n't bother improving it ; I think the claim was that those pages were n't especially secret and that students who could " break in " were somewhat rare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good old high schools.
I showed the teacher who set up our intranet how the password-protection (done via client side JavaScript) could be bypassed.
I didn't get in trouble, and they didn't bother improving it; I think the claim was that those pages weren't especially secret and that students who could "break in" were somewhat rare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486301</id>
	<title>Welcome to Web 0.5</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1246045080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now you can't index the web because somewhere, somehow in all the world wide web someone posted something that in some country could be challenged as illegal. You can't have any kind of input from your users, because some "malicious" (or not with a ring of 3+ international laws degree deep knowledge) could put a link to a place that have content that could be objectionable in some country.<br>Or you must watch and approve at hand with a bunch of lawyers on your side anything that you will show in your site, coming from you, coming from other sites, or coming from visitors.<br><br>Why we couldnt just jail all the persons (and their families, of course, peer pressure works) that want that internet in that internet, and keep this actual one for us?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you ca n't index the web because somewhere , somehow in all the world wide web someone posted something that in some country could be challenged as illegal .
You ca n't have any kind of input from your users , because some " malicious " ( or not with a ring of 3 + international laws degree deep knowledge ) could put a link to a place that have content that could be objectionable in some country.Or you must watch and approve at hand with a bunch of lawyers on your side anything that you will show in your site , coming from you , coming from other sites , or coming from visitors.Why we couldnt just jail all the persons ( and their families , of course , peer pressure works ) that want that internet in that internet , and keep this actual one for us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you can't index the web because somewhere, somehow in all the world wide web someone posted something that in some country could be challenged as illegal.
You can't have any kind of input from your users, because some "malicious" (or not with a ring of 3+ international laws degree deep knowledge) could put a link to a place that have content that could be objectionable in some country.Or you must watch and approve at hand with a bunch of lawyers on your side anything that you will show in your site, coming from you, coming from other sites, or coming from visitors.Why we couldnt just jail all the persons (and their families, of course, peer pressure works) that want that internet in that internet, and keep this actual one for us?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486405</id>
	<title>Search Engines Should Be Legit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246045680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see the problem with what they (Scopelight) were doing.  As long as they are connecting to infringing websites, then authorities can go after the websites themselves (rather than the search engine).
<br> <br>
I'll also add that this is not the same thing as PirateBay, since PirateBay is a torrent tracker - the people uploading/downloading information aren't websites, but they are located at an ever-shifting number of changing IP addresses.  Heck, they could be at a coffeeshop's free wifi while filesharing - and who can possibly track them down?  Further, the PirateBay goes out of their way to hide filesharers identities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the problem with what they ( Scopelight ) were doing .
As long as they are connecting to infringing websites , then authorities can go after the websites themselves ( rather than the search engine ) .
I 'll also add that this is not the same thing as PirateBay , since PirateBay is a torrent tracker - the people uploading/downloading information are n't websites , but they are located at an ever-shifting number of changing IP addresses .
Heck , they could be at a coffeeshop 's free wifi while filesharing - and who can possibly track them down ?
Further , the PirateBay goes out of their way to hide filesharers identities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the problem with what they (Scopelight) were doing.
As long as they are connecting to infringing websites, then authorities can go after the websites themselves (rather than the search engine).
I'll also add that this is not the same thing as PirateBay, since PirateBay is a torrent tracker - the people uploading/downloading information aren't websites, but they are located at an ever-shifting number of changing IP addresses.
Heck, they could be at a coffeeshop's free wifi while filesharing - and who can possibly track them down?
Further, the PirateBay goes out of their way to hide filesharers identities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233</id>
	<title>Re:So, to draw a parallel</title>
	<author>EkriirkE</author>
	<datestamp>1246044720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes.<br>
In HS I showed out net admin that I could access anyone's private doc folder - across multiple campuses.  I wasn't <i>caught</i>, I explicitly showed it to the proper authorities.  I got suspended and my computer privileges revoked.<br>
<br>
Apparently you are better off doing wrong than good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
In HS I showed out net admin that I could access anyone 's private doc folder - across multiple campuses .
I was n't caught , I explicitly showed it to the proper authorities .
I got suspended and my computer privileges revoked .
Apparently you are better off doing wrong than good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
In HS I showed out net admin that I could access anyone's private doc folder - across multiple campuses.
I wasn't caught, I explicitly showed it to the proper authorities.
I got suspended and my computer privileges revoked.
Apparently you are better off doing wrong than good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28503597</id>
	<title>Re:So, to draw a parallel</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246202400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should have done the following:<br>Install a trojan backdoor on as much systems as possible. Then frag the admins's systems trough some of those backdoors (which should be encrypted), and at least twice trough an external anonymizing proxy.</p><p>But frag them slowly, taking all the backups with you.<br>That will teach 'em to learn their security, for sure. ^^</p><p>Then wait for the new security update to be announced. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should have done the following : Install a trojan backdoor on as much systems as possible .
Then frag the admins 's systems trough some of those backdoors ( which should be encrypted ) , and at least twice trough an external anonymizing proxy.But frag them slowly , taking all the backups with you.That will teach 'em to learn their security , for sure .
^ ^ Then wait for the new security update to be announced .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should have done the following:Install a trojan backdoor on as much systems as possible.
Then frag the admins's systems trough some of those backdoors (which should be encrypted), and at least twice trough an external anonymizing proxy.But frag them slowly, taking all the backups with you.That will teach 'em to learn their security, for sure.
^^Then wait for the new security update to be announced.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28497425</id>
	<title>Re:Just tellin folks WHERE to get the illegal good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246095420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think in most countries your hypothetical creepy guy would be an accomplice to both kidnapping and rape if he knew where and when those things were happening but didn't inform the police. Your analogy doesn't make any sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think in most countries your hypothetical creepy guy would be an accomplice to both kidnapping and rape if he knew where and when those things were happening but did n't inform the police .
Your analogy does n't make any sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think in most countries your hypothetical creepy guy would be an accomplice to both kidnapping and rape if he knew where and when those things were happening but didn't inform the police.
Your analogy doesn't make any sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486289</id>
	<title>Re:this is a fundamental flaw in some current law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246045020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it will take the likes of google to be sued before we'll get a real precedent because only they have enough money to take it all the way to the highest courts.</i></p><p>That is the reason why google will <b>NEVER</b> be sued for operating their search engine.</p><p>The RIAA/MPAA/IFPI may make threats and insinuations but they'll never actually go through with it.</p><p>Someone should googlebomb "music" to point to PirateBay to test it.  Is it possible to do it with a search as generic as "music"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it will take the likes of google to be sued before we 'll get a real precedent because only they have enough money to take it all the way to the highest courts.That is the reason why google will NEVER be sued for operating their search engine.The RIAA/MPAA/IFPI may make threats and insinuations but they 'll never actually go through with it.Someone should googlebomb " music " to point to PirateBay to test it .
Is it possible to do it with a search as generic as " music " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it will take the likes of google to be sued before we'll get a real precedent because only they have enough money to take it all the way to the highest courts.That is the reason why google will NEVER be sued for operating their search engine.The RIAA/MPAA/IFPI may make threats and insinuations but they'll never actually go through with it.Someone should googlebomb "music" to point to PirateBay to test it.
Is it possible to do it with a search as generic as "music"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487601</id>
	<title>Re:DMCA</title>
	<author>arotenbe</author>
	<datestamp>1246007640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>10 years ago the US Congress had the foresight to pass the <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html#d" title="cornell.edu">DMCA</a> [cornell.edu] which protects search engines, ISP caches, and similar technologies from this kind of nonsense.  Too bad other nations haven't followed the USA's lead in this respect.</p></div><p>Indeed, while lots of people on Slashdot hate the DMCA for its lack of penalties for abusive takedown notices, the protection for search engines and the like is definitely necessary for the internet to continue in the form we know it today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>10 years ago the US Congress had the foresight to pass the DMCA [ cornell.edu ] which protects search engines , ISP caches , and similar technologies from this kind of nonsense .
Too bad other nations have n't followed the USA 's lead in this respect.Indeed , while lots of people on Slashdot hate the DMCA for its lack of penalties for abusive takedown notices , the protection for search engines and the like is definitely necessary for the internet to continue in the form we know it today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 years ago the US Congress had the foresight to pass the DMCA [cornell.edu] which protects search engines, ISP caches, and similar technologies from this kind of nonsense.
Too bad other nations haven't followed the USA's lead in this respect.Indeed, while lots of people on Slashdot hate the DMCA for its lack of penalties for abusive takedown notices, the protection for search engines and the like is definitely necessary for the internet to continue in the form we know it today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486101</id>
	<title>Do you blame the road if the car is stolen?</title>
	<author>decipher\_saint</author>
	<datestamp>1246044060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A search engine isn't some magic machine that developers plug wishes and rainbows in and tell it not to be naughty (especially in the age of ever-changing legally defined naughtyness).</p><p>A search engine simply leads to data, for that to work it has to store some part of it. The reality is that a search engine is completely ignorant of morals, laws and copyright.</p><p>Data is collected. Data is stored. Data is Data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A search engine is n't some magic machine that developers plug wishes and rainbows in and tell it not to be naughty ( especially in the age of ever-changing legally defined naughtyness ) .A search engine simply leads to data , for that to work it has to store some part of it .
The reality is that a search engine is completely ignorant of morals , laws and copyright.Data is collected .
Data is stored .
Data is Data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A search engine isn't some magic machine that developers plug wishes and rainbows in and tell it not to be naughty (especially in the age of ever-changing legally defined naughtyness).A search engine simply leads to data, for that to work it has to store some part of it.
The reality is that a search engine is completely ignorant of morals, laws and copyright.Data is collected.
Data is stored.
Data is Data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28503597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28497425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1629225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28490469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1629225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487601
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1629225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486107
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1629225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1629225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1629225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1629225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1629225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1629225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28490469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1629225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28485963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28503597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488853
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28489229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486803
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1629225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1629225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28497425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28487383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28488527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1629225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1629225.28486301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
