<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_28_196227</id>
	<title>RIAA Defendant Moves For Summary Judgment</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246217340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">NewYorkCountryLawyer</a> writes <i>"One thing you don't see too much of in RIAA litigation is a defendant moving for summary judgment, but that is what just occurred in federal court in Westchester, in <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=Lava\_v\_Amurao2">Lava Records v. Amurao II</a>. The RIAA had brought suit against Rolando Amurao, a middle aged man who knew nothing about file sharing. After haranguing him for 2 years, they dropped the case and sued his daughter, Audrey, who had used LimeWire years ago. When the RIAA moved for summary judgment against Audrey, however, <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/06/defendant-moves-for-summary-judgment-in.html">she surprised them with a summary judgment motion of her own</a>, calling for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run out on the RIAA's claims. The <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/lava\_amurao2\_090626DeftMemoSJ.pdf">brief filed by her attorney</a> (PDF) also points out some of the other infirmities in the RIAA's case, such as the inadmissibility of its evidence, the legal nonexistence of a claim for 'making available,' and the unconstitutionality of its damages theory. According to sources, the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey's motion, and is preparing a letter to send the Judge asking the Judge not to allow her to make it. Meanwhile, Audrey's father's case, <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents.htm#Lava\_v\_Amurao">Lava Records v. Rolando Amurao</a>, is on appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit over the issue of whether the RIAA should have to reimburse Mr. Amurao for his attorneys fees. Although the appeal was fully briefed and scheduled for argument May 19th, the RIAA has been asking for postponements of the argument."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " One thing you do n't see too much of in RIAA litigation is a defendant moving for summary judgment , but that is what just occurred in federal court in Westchester , in Lava Records v. Amurao II .
The RIAA had brought suit against Rolando Amurao , a middle aged man who knew nothing about file sharing .
After haranguing him for 2 years , they dropped the case and sued his daughter , Audrey , who had used LimeWire years ago .
When the RIAA moved for summary judgment against Audrey , however , she surprised them with a summary judgment motion of her own , calling for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run out on the RIAA 's claims .
The brief filed by her attorney ( PDF ) also points out some of the other infirmities in the RIAA 's case , such as the inadmissibility of its evidence , the legal nonexistence of a claim for 'making available, ' and the unconstitutionality of its damages theory .
According to sources , the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey 's motion , and is preparing a letter to send the Judge asking the Judge not to allow her to make it .
Meanwhile , Audrey 's father 's case , Lava Records v. Rolando Amurao , is on appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit over the issue of whether the RIAA should have to reimburse Mr. Amurao for his attorneys fees .
Although the appeal was fully briefed and scheduled for argument May 19th , the RIAA has been asking for postponements of the argument .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "One thing you don't see too much of in RIAA litigation is a defendant moving for summary judgment, but that is what just occurred in federal court in Westchester, in Lava Records v. Amurao II.
The RIAA had brought suit against Rolando Amurao, a middle aged man who knew nothing about file sharing.
After haranguing him for 2 years, they dropped the case and sued his daughter, Audrey, who had used LimeWire years ago.
When the RIAA moved for summary judgment against Audrey, however, she surprised them with a summary judgment motion of her own, calling for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run out on the RIAA's claims.
The brief filed by her attorney (PDF) also points out some of the other infirmities in the RIAA's case, such as the inadmissibility of its evidence, the legal nonexistence of a claim for 'making available,' and the unconstitutionality of its damages theory.
According to sources, the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey's motion, and is preparing a letter to send the Judge asking the Judge not to allow her to make it.
Meanwhile, Audrey's father's case, Lava Records v. Rolando Amurao, is on appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit over the issue of whether the RIAA should have to reimburse Mr. Amurao for his attorneys fees.
Although the appeal was fully briefed and scheduled for argument May 19th, the RIAA has been asking for postponements of the argument.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28512859</id>
	<title>Re:Curious interpretation of "the public"</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1246283460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't lend a DVD to your neighbour. That's "lending" which you'll see is forbidden in the same phrase as "copying, leasing, public performance, distribution..." etc when you start up your DVD.<br> <br>You know, the bit VNC Media Player allows you to skip totally,</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't lend a DVD to your neighbour .
That 's " lending " which you 'll see is forbidden in the same phrase as " copying , leasing , public performance , distribution... " etc when you start up your DVD .
You know , the bit VNC Media Player allows you to skip totally,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't lend a DVD to your neighbour.
That's "lending" which you'll see is forbidden in the same phrase as "copying, leasing, public performance, distribution..." etc when you start up your DVD.
You know, the bit VNC Media Player allows you to skip totally,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506567</id>
	<title>Re:About That Letter ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246179960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They cant be trying to block it because it'll give other people ideas can they?<br>IANAL but I assume just filing a motion wont affect any future cases.</p><p>Unless 5000 people all did the same thing.. that'd be interesting to see.<br>Surely popular opinion should affect how judges interpret the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They cant be trying to block it because it 'll give other people ideas can they ? IANAL but I assume just filing a motion wont affect any future cases.Unless 5000 people all did the same thing.. that 'd be interesting to see.Surely popular opinion should affect how judges interpret the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They cant be trying to block it because it'll give other people ideas can they?IANAL but I assume just filing a motion wont affect any future cases.Unless 5000 people all did the same thing.. that'd be interesting to see.Surely popular opinion should affect how judges interpret the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28510227</id>
	<title>Re:Prosecution</title>
	<author>CowboyBob500</author>
	<datestamp>1246213920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. What kind of dumb legal system allows a rich person to sue a poor person, then half-way through say, "Oops, didn't mean it", without having to cover the costs of the other party?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
What kind of dumb legal system allows a rich person to sue a poor person , then half-way through say , " Oops , did n't mean it " , without having to cover the costs of the other party ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
What kind of dumb legal system allows a rich person to sue a poor person, then half-way through say, "Oops, didn't mean it", without having to cover the costs of the other party?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506375</id>
	<title>Zombie Movie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246221540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me so much of a zombie movie... where somebody has cut off the zombie's head, but it doesn't know it's dead yet, and stumbles around causing damage and killing people for a couple of years before it falls over for good.
<br> <br>
I will be soooo happy when the RIAA finally realizes it's dead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me so much of a zombie movie... where somebody has cut off the zombie 's head , but it does n't know it 's dead yet , and stumbles around causing damage and killing people for a couple of years before it falls over for good .
I will be soooo happy when the RIAA finally realizes it 's dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me so much of a zombie movie... where somebody has cut off the zombie's head, but it doesn't know it's dead yet, and stumbles around causing damage and killing people for a couple of years before it falls over for good.
I will be soooo happy when the RIAA finally realizes it's dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28509387</id>
	<title>Come again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Although the appeal was fully briefed and scheduled for argument May 19th, the RIAA has been asking for postponements of the argument.</p><p>It is now June.  28th.  Either you're talking about something in 2010, or they've already asked.  Which is it?</p><p>Confusing summaries are not a good thing, and this one is a doozy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although the appeal was fully briefed and scheduled for argument May 19th , the RIAA has been asking for postponements of the argument.It is now June .
28th. Either you 're talking about something in 2010 , or they 've already asked .
Which is it ? Confusing summaries are not a good thing , and this one is a doozy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Although the appeal was fully briefed and scheduled for argument May 19th, the RIAA has been asking for postponements of the argument.It is now June.
28th.  Either you're talking about something in 2010, or they've already asked.
Which is it?Confusing summaries are not a good thing, and this one is a doozy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28512207</id>
	<title>Re:Zombie Movie</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1246278060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This reminds me so much of a zombie movie... where somebody has cut off the zombie's head, but it doesn't know it's dead yet, and stumbles around causing damage and killing people for a couple of years before it falls over for good.</i> <br> <br>I didn't realise this was another story about SCO<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me so much of a zombie movie... where somebody has cut off the zombie 's head , but it does n't know it 's dead yet , and stumbles around causing damage and killing people for a couple of years before it falls over for good .
I did n't realise this was another story about SCO : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me so much of a zombie movie... where somebody has cut off the zombie's head, but it doesn't know it's dead yet, and stumbles around causing damage and killing people for a couple of years before it falls over for good.
I didn't realise this was another story about SCO :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28510891</id>
	<title>NCL BLogvertisement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246306500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we just stick a big free banner ad to NYCL's blog so he can stop boring us and spamming us with his sad attempt to generate more page views?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we just stick a big free banner ad to NYCL 's blog so he can stop boring us and spamming us with his sad attempt to generate more page views ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we just stick a big free banner ad to NYCL's blog so he can stop boring us and spamming us with his sad attempt to generate more page views?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506707</id>
	<title>Grandfather clause?</title>
	<author>miggyb</author>
	<datestamp>1246181160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is really interesting. FTA:</p><p> <em>Moreover, the copying, even assuming it was an infringement, took place when the song files were first copied onto defendant&#226;(TM)s computer hard drive.  The fact that they were still there later does not constitute a continuing infringement, regardless of when MediaSentry may have accessed the files.</em> </p><p>The way I interpret this (although IANAL) is that if you're sharing a folder online, and they don't sue you within 3 years, you're pretty much home free? This could be really good news for people who share files. Especially since you could copy them to a computer not connected to the internet, wait 3 years, then release it to the wild.</p><p>The question is, of course, whether people would be happy sharing 3-year-old music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really interesting .
FTA : Moreover , the copying , even assuming it was an infringement , took place when the song files were first copied onto defendant   ( TM ) s computer hard drive .
The fact that they were still there later does not constitute a continuing infringement , regardless of when MediaSentry may have accessed the files .
The way I interpret this ( although IANAL ) is that if you 're sharing a folder online , and they do n't sue you within 3 years , you 're pretty much home free ?
This could be really good news for people who share files .
Especially since you could copy them to a computer not connected to the internet , wait 3 years , then release it to the wild.The question is , of course , whether people would be happy sharing 3-year-old music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really interesting.
FTA: Moreover, the copying, even assuming it was an infringement, took place when the song files were first copied onto defendantâ(TM)s computer hard drive.
The fact that they were still there later does not constitute a continuing infringement, regardless of when MediaSentry may have accessed the files.
The way I interpret this (although IANAL) is that if you're sharing a folder online, and they don't sue you within 3 years, you're pretty much home free?
This could be really good news for people who share files.
Especially since you could copy them to a computer not connected to the internet, wait 3 years, then release it to the wild.The question is, of course, whether people would be happy sharing 3-year-old music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506383</id>
	<title>HI, BILLY MAYS HERE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246221660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You read that in his voice, didn't you?</p><p>RIP Billy Mayes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You read that in his voice , did n't you ? RIP Billy Mayes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You read that in his voice, didn't you?RIP Billy Mayes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506555</id>
	<title>You Go Girl!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246179840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Three cheers for the lady!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Three cheers for the lady !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three cheers for the lady!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506635</id>
	<title>Man'kind' planning to skip 'judgement day'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246180560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as far as we can see, it's coming anyway. very important peepoles are being forced to part with their parcels for a song. couldn't be more appropriate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as far as we can see , it 's coming anyway .
very important peepoles are being forced to part with their parcels for a song .
could n't be more appropriate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as far as we can see, it's coming anyway.
very important peepoles are being forced to part with their parcels for a song.
couldn't be more appropriate?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507447</id>
	<title>Re:"Not to allow her to make it"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246187580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>get a LOAD of that BULLSHIT. what kind of twisted system is american legal system that, a judge can DENY a legal move by any of the parties. hey ! i have evidence ! but i cant use it - why ? because IT IS DENIED BY APPLICATION OF THE OTHER PARTY.</p></div><p>The judge made a deadline for each lawyer to submit "motions"  - letters that say "this case is invalid, because [xxx]".  These letters are very common, since there isn't much to lose by trying.</p><p>The judge then extended that deadline to later.  The defendant sent a letter to the judge objecting to the RIAA's motion, after the first deadline, before the second.</p><p>The RIAA then sent a third letter to the judge, pointing out to the judge that the second letter was "too late" (because it was after the first deadline).  That's silly, because there was a second deadline, but that's all the letter was.  The American legal system may be twisted in other ways, but this is just some asshole lawyer writing a letter to a judge to try to confuse them.  There's no "evidence" being denied, and the judge will hopefully ignore the letter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>get a LOAD of that BULLSHIT .
what kind of twisted system is american legal system that , a judge can DENY a legal move by any of the parties .
hey !
i have evidence !
but i cant use it - why ?
because IT IS DENIED BY APPLICATION OF THE OTHER PARTY.The judge made a deadline for each lawyer to submit " motions " - letters that say " this case is invalid , because [ xxx ] " .
These letters are very common , since there is n't much to lose by trying.The judge then extended that deadline to later .
The defendant sent a letter to the judge objecting to the RIAA 's motion , after the first deadline , before the second.The RIAA then sent a third letter to the judge , pointing out to the judge that the second letter was " too late " ( because it was after the first deadline ) .
That 's silly , because there was a second deadline , but that 's all the letter was .
The American legal system may be twisted in other ways , but this is just some asshole lawyer writing a letter to a judge to try to confuse them .
There 's no " evidence " being denied , and the judge will hopefully ignore the letter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get a LOAD of that BULLSHIT.
what kind of twisted system is american legal system that, a judge can DENY a legal move by any of the parties.
hey !
i have evidence !
but i cant use it - why ?
because IT IS DENIED BY APPLICATION OF THE OTHER PARTY.The judge made a deadline for each lawyer to submit "motions"  - letters that say "this case is invalid, because [xxx]".
These letters are very common, since there isn't much to lose by trying.The judge then extended that deadline to later.
The defendant sent a letter to the judge objecting to the RIAA's motion, after the first deadline, before the second.The RIAA then sent a third letter to the judge, pointing out to the judge that the second letter was "too late" (because it was after the first deadline).
That's silly, because there was a second deadline, but that's all the letter was.
The American legal system may be twisted in other ways, but this is just some asshole lawyer writing a letter to a judge to try to confuse them.
There's no "evidence" being denied, and the judge will hopefully ignore the letter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28515797</id>
	<title>Just say no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246298100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's this type of crap from the RIAA that convinced me years ago to just no to commercial music sold as a product by the big corporations. Why empower these sleeze bags?</p><p>There's plenty of good music from independent artists!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's this type of crap from the RIAA that convinced me years ago to just no to commercial music sold as a product by the big corporations .
Why empower these sleeze bags ? There 's plenty of good music from independent artists !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's this type of crap from the RIAA that convinced me years ago to just no to commercial music sold as a product by the big corporations.
Why empower these sleeze bags?There's plenty of good music from independent artists!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507707</id>
	<title>Re:Zombie Movie</title>
	<author>boombaard</author>
	<datestamp>1246189500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't that sequence of events trademarked (or whatever) as a business method (or whatever) by Looney Tunes (or something)? It seems suspiciously similar to the sequences where laws like the law of gravitation only kicks in once the character sees he should be affected by them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that sequence of events trademarked ( or whatever ) as a business method ( or whatever ) by Looney Tunes ( or something ) ?
It seems suspiciously similar to the sequences where laws like the law of gravitation only kicks in once the character sees he should be affected by them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that sequence of events trademarked (or whatever) as a business method (or whatever) by Looney Tunes (or something)?
It seems suspiciously similar to the sequences where laws like the law of gravitation only kicks in once the character sees he should be affected by them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507363</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright term is now three years?</title>
	<author>bushing</author>
	<datestamp>1246186920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This sounds like a great boon to all mankind - a single judge gets to decide something that basically means the term of copyright is now three years.  Right?</p></div><p>Wrong.  The defendant's lawyer (not a judge) is arguing that the statute of limitations on the alleged  infringement (not the term of copyright) is three years.</p><p>The issue is not "How long does copyright last?".  It is "How long can you wait to accuse someone of a crime?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like a great boon to all mankind - a single judge gets to decide something that basically means the term of copyright is now three years .
Right ? Wrong. The defendant 's lawyer ( not a judge ) is arguing that the statute of limitations on the alleged infringement ( not the term of copyright ) is three years.The issue is not " How long does copyright last ? " .
It is " How long can you wait to accuse someone of a crime ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like a great boon to all mankind - a single judge gets to decide something that basically means the term of copyright is now three years.
Right?Wrong.  The defendant's lawyer (not a judge) is arguing that the statute of limitations on the alleged  infringement (not the term of copyright) is three years.The issue is not "How long does copyright last?".
It is "How long can you wait to accuse someone of a crime?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506499</id>
	<title>Re:About That Letter ..</title>
	<author>anagama</author>
	<datestamp>1246222680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really understand the "letter to the judge" part.  Absent an issue with a party abusing motion practice, any motion should be considered and nobody has a right to say a party can't file a motion.  The other party is totally free to argue that the motion is bogus of course, and if the motion is defective for procedural reasons, it can be denied on that basis.  Nothing is stopping the RIAA from filing a response saying the motion should be denied, and I suppose the letter could be considered an informal response, but if it isn't shared with the other party, then it is unethical and improper communication with a judge.<br> <br>I wish we had more info on what this "letter to the judge" thing means.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really understand the " letter to the judge " part .
Absent an issue with a party abusing motion practice , any motion should be considered and nobody has a right to say a party ca n't file a motion .
The other party is totally free to argue that the motion is bogus of course , and if the motion is defective for procedural reasons , it can be denied on that basis .
Nothing is stopping the RIAA from filing a response saying the motion should be denied , and I suppose the letter could be considered an informal response , but if it is n't shared with the other party , then it is unethical and improper communication with a judge .
I wish we had more info on what this " letter to the judge " thing means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really understand the "letter to the judge" part.
Absent an issue with a party abusing motion practice, any motion should be considered and nobody has a right to say a party can't file a motion.
The other party is totally free to argue that the motion is bogus of course, and if the motion is defective for procedural reasons, it can be denied on that basis.
Nothing is stopping the RIAA from filing a response saying the motion should be denied, and I suppose the letter could be considered an informal response, but if it isn't shared with the other party, then it is unethical and improper communication with a judge.
I wish we had more info on what this "letter to the judge" thing means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506923</id>
	<title>Re:Grandfather clause?</title>
	<author>Lloyd\_Bryant</author>
	<datestamp>1246183140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The way I interpret this (although IANAL) is that if you're sharing a folder online, and they don't sue you within 3 years, you're pretty much home free? This could be really good news for people who share files. Especially since you could copy them to a computer not connected to the internet, wait 3 years, then release it to the wild.</p></div><p>IANAL either, but I believe you're confusing two points.  There are two different rights given to copyright holders - the exclusive right to create copies, and the exclusive right to distribute them to others.</p><p>The section you're reading only applies to the former.  So imagine the following: You download a bunch of songs from the 'net, and have them on your hard drive for more than 3 years.  Then they discover that you have those infringing copies.  The statute of limitation prevents them from suing you for having copied those songs without the rights holder's permission.</p><p>But, if you then distribute them to the public, a new infringement occurs (a violation of the exclusive right to distribute).  The statute of limitations on *that* runs from the date of distribution, not the date of copying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I interpret this ( although IANAL ) is that if you 're sharing a folder online , and they do n't sue you within 3 years , you 're pretty much home free ?
This could be really good news for people who share files .
Especially since you could copy them to a computer not connected to the internet , wait 3 years , then release it to the wild.IANAL either , but I believe you 're confusing two points .
There are two different rights given to copyright holders - the exclusive right to create copies , and the exclusive right to distribute them to others.The section you 're reading only applies to the former .
So imagine the following : You download a bunch of songs from the 'net , and have them on your hard drive for more than 3 years .
Then they discover that you have those infringing copies .
The statute of limitation prevents them from suing you for having copied those songs without the rights holder 's permission.But , if you then distribute them to the public , a new infringement occurs ( a violation of the exclusive right to distribute ) .
The statute of limitations on * that * runs from the date of distribution , not the date of copying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I interpret this (although IANAL) is that if you're sharing a folder online, and they don't sue you within 3 years, you're pretty much home free?
This could be really good news for people who share files.
Especially since you could copy them to a computer not connected to the internet, wait 3 years, then release it to the wild.IANAL either, but I believe you're confusing two points.
There are two different rights given to copyright holders - the exclusive right to create copies, and the exclusive right to distribute them to others.The section you're reading only applies to the former.
So imagine the following: You download a bunch of songs from the 'net, and have them on your hard drive for more than 3 years.
Then they discover that you have those infringing copies.
The statute of limitation prevents them from suing you for having copied those songs without the rights holder's permission.But, if you then distribute them to the public, a new infringement occurs (a violation of the exclusive right to distribute).
The statute of limitations on *that* runs from the date of distribution, not the date of copying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507679</id>
	<title>Re:About That Letter ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246189320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of a justice system does USA have when they deny someone to make a complaint and file for summary judgment the same way as the opposite side?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of a justice system does USA have when they deny someone to make a complaint and file for summary judgment the same way as the opposite side ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of a justice system does USA have when they deny someone to make a complaint and file for summary judgment the same way as the opposite side?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28538125</id>
	<title>cheap wow gold</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246378200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weekends to people<a href="http://www.ig2t.net/" title="ig2t.net" rel="nofollow">ig2t</a> [ig2t.net] mean that they can have a two-day <a href="http://www.wowgold4europe.net/" title="wowgold4europe.net" rel="nofollow">wowgold4europe</a> [wowgold4europe.net] good rest. For example&#239;&#188;OE people <a href="http://www.gameusd.org/" title="gameusd.org" rel="nofollow">gameusd</a> [gameusd.org] can go out to enjoy themselves or get <a href="http://www.meinwowgold.com/" title="meinwowgold.com" rel="nofollow">meinwowgold</a> [meinwowgold.com] together with relatives and friends to talk with each <a href="http://www.storeingame.net/" title="storeingame.net" rel="nofollow">storeingame</a> [storeingame.net] other or watch interesting video tapes with the <a href="http://www.speebie.org/" title="speebie.org" rel="nofollow">speebie</a> [speebie.org] whole family.<br>Everyone spends <a href="http://www.agamegold.org/" title="agamegold.org" rel="nofollow">agamegold</a> [agamegold.org] weekends in his own<a href="http://www.mmofly.org/" title="mmofly.org" rel="nofollow">mmofly</a> [mmofly.org] way. Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to music&#239;&#188;OE reading novels&#239;&#188;OEor watching<a href="http://www.ogeworld.org/" title="ogeworld.org" rel="nofollow">ogeworld</a> [ogeworld.org] films. Others perhaps are more active by playing basketball&#239;&#188;OEwimming or<a href="http://www.mmorpgvip.net/" title="mmorpgvip.net" rel="nofollow">mmorpgvip</a> [mmorpgvip.net] dancing. Different people have different <a href="http://www.gamesavor.net/" title="gamesavor.net" rel="nofollow">gamesavor</a> [gamesavor.net] relaxations.<br>I often spend weekends with<a href="http://www.oggsale.net/" title="oggsale.net" rel="nofollow">oggsale</a> [oggsale.net] my family or my friends. Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends. Sometimes<a href="http://www.gamersell.net/" title="gamersell.net" rel="nofollow">gamersell</a> [gamersell.net] I go to the library to study or borrow some books to<a href="http://www.mmovirtex.net/" title="mmovirtex.net" rel="nofollow">mmovirtex</a> [mmovirtex.net] gain much knowledge. I also go to see various exhibition to broaden<a href="http://www.rpg-trader.net/" title="rpg-trader.net" rel="nofollow">rpg trader</a> [rpg-trader.net] my vision. An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends. Weekends are always enjoyable for me.<br><a href="http://www.igxe.org/" title="igxe.org" rel="nofollow">igxe</a> [igxe.org] <a href="http://www.swagvault.org/" title="swagvault.org" rel="nofollow">swagvault</a> [swagvault.org] oforu <a href="http://www.wowgold-usa.org/" title="wowgold-usa.org" rel="nofollow">wowgold-usa</a> [wowgold-usa.org] <a href="http://www.ignmax.org/" title="ignmax.org" rel="nofollow">ignmax</a> [ignmax.org] <a href="http://www.wowgoldlive.net/" title="wowgoldlive.net" rel="nofollow">wowgoldlive</a> [wowgoldlive.net] <a href="http://www.brogame.net/" title="brogame.net" rel="nofollow">brogame</a> [brogame.net]  <a href="http://www.thsale.org/" title="thsale.org" rel="nofollow">thsale</a> [thsale.org] <a href="http://www.goldrocku.net/" title="goldrocku.net" rel="nofollow">GoldRockU</a> [goldrocku.net] <a href="http://www.brogame.us/" title="brogame.us" rel="nofollow">brogame</a> [brogame.us]<br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://www.swagvault.us/" title="swagvault.us" rel="nofollow">swagvault</a> [swagvault.us] <a href="http://www.goldsoon.us/" title="goldsoon.us" rel="nofollow">goldsoon</a> [goldsoon.us] <a href="http://www.oforu.us/" title="oforu.us" rel="nofollow">oforu</a> [oforu.us] <a href="http://www.igxe.us/" title="www.igxe.us" rel="nofollow">igxe</a> [www.igxe.us] <a href="http://www.thsale.us/" title="thsale.us" rel="nofollow">thsale</a> [thsale.us]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Weekends to peopleig2t [ ig2t.net ] mean that they can have a two-day wowgold4europe [ wowgold4europe.net ] good rest .
For example     OE people gameusd [ gameusd.org ] can go out to enjoy themselves or get meinwowgold [ meinwowgold.com ] together with relatives and friends to talk with each storeingame [ storeingame.net ] other or watch interesting video tapes with the speebie [ speebie.org ] whole family.Everyone spends agamegold [ agamegold.org ] weekends in his ownmmofly [ mmofly.org ] way .
Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to music     OE reading novels     OEor watchingogeworld [ ogeworld.org ] films .
Others perhaps are more active by playing basketball     OEwimming ormmorpgvip [ mmorpgvip.net ] dancing .
Different people have different gamesavor [ gamesavor.net ] relaxations.I often spend weekends withoggsale [ oggsale.net ] my family or my friends .
Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends .
Sometimesgamersell [ gamersell.net ] I go to the library to study or borrow some books tommovirtex [ mmovirtex.net ] gain much knowledge .
I also go to see various exhibition to broadenrpg trader [ rpg-trader.net ] my vision .
An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends .
Weekends are always enjoyable for me.igxe [ igxe.org ] swagvault [ swagvault.org ] oforu wowgold-usa [ wowgold-usa.org ] ignmax [ ignmax.org ] wowgoldlive [ wowgoldlive.net ] brogame [ brogame.net ] thsale [ thsale.org ] GoldRockU [ goldrocku.net ] brogame [ brogame.us ]   swagvault [ swagvault.us ] goldsoon [ goldsoon.us ] oforu [ oforu.us ] igxe [ www.igxe.us ] thsale [ thsale.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weekends to peopleig2t [ig2t.net] mean that they can have a two-day wowgold4europe [wowgold4europe.net] good rest.
For exampleï¼OE people gameusd [gameusd.org] can go out to enjoy themselves or get meinwowgold [meinwowgold.com] together with relatives and friends to talk with each storeingame [storeingame.net] other or watch interesting video tapes with the speebie [speebie.org] whole family.Everyone spends agamegold [agamegold.org] weekends in his ownmmofly [mmofly.org] way.
Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to musicï¼OE reading novelsï¼OEor watchingogeworld [ogeworld.org] films.
Others perhaps are more active by playing basketballï¼OEwimming ormmorpgvip [mmorpgvip.net] dancing.
Different people have different gamesavor [gamesavor.net] relaxations.I often spend weekends withoggsale [oggsale.net] my family or my friends.
Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends.
Sometimesgamersell [gamersell.net] I go to the library to study or borrow some books tommovirtex [mmovirtex.net] gain much knowledge.
I also go to see various exhibition to broadenrpg trader [rpg-trader.net] my vision.
An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends.
Weekends are always enjoyable for me.igxe [igxe.org] swagvault [swagvault.org] oforu wowgold-usa [wowgold-usa.org] ignmax [ignmax.org] wowgoldlive [wowgoldlive.net] brogame [brogame.net]  thsale [thsale.org] GoldRockU [goldrocku.net] brogame [brogame.us]
  swagvault [swagvault.us] goldsoon [goldsoon.us] oforu [oforu.us] igxe [www.igxe.us] thsale [thsale.us]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506655</id>
	<title>Prosecution</title>
	<author>BountyX</author>
	<datestamp>1246180680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>At what point does the legal system itself become a tool for prosecution? Both the father and daughter are involved, despite the outcome, it basically amounts to harassment. Sad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At what point does the legal system itself become a tool for prosecution ?
Both the father and daughter are involved , despite the outcome , it basically amounts to harassment .
Sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At what point does the legal system itself become a tool for prosecution?
Both the father and daughter are involved, despite the outcome, it basically amounts to harassment.
Sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506623</id>
	<title>If the legal system worked,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246180440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RIAA bosses would be charged for harassment and imprisoned. Fix your legal system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA bosses would be charged for harassment and imprisoned .
Fix your legal system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA bosses would be charged for harassment and imprisoned.
Fix your legal system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506285</id>
	<title>About That Letter ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246221060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>According to sources, the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey's motion, and is preparing a sack of money to send the Judge asking the Judge not to allow her to make it.</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.  Actually, to be fair:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>According to sources, the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey's motion, and is preparing a letter to send the Judge reminding the Judge that he's bought and paid for just like the lawmakers and Judges up the rest of <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-10157381-38.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">the chain</a> [cnet.com].</p></div><p>More realistic although it's a shame this lower court Judge probably won't profit personally from the case unlike those installed into prestigious positions and those accepting lobbying money for their political campaigns.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to sources , the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey 's motion , and is preparing a sack of money to send the Judge asking the Judge not to allow her to make it.There , fixed that for you .
Actually , to be fair : According to sources , the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey 's motion , and is preparing a letter to send the Judge reminding the Judge that he 's bought and paid for just like the lawmakers and Judges up the rest of the chain [ cnet.com ] .More realistic although it 's a shame this lower court Judge probably wo n't profit personally from the case unlike those installed into prestigious positions and those accepting lobbying money for their political campaigns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to sources, the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey's motion, and is preparing a sack of money to send the Judge asking the Judge not to allow her to make it.There, fixed that for you.
Actually, to be fair:According to sources, the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey's motion, and is preparing a letter to send the Judge reminding the Judge that he's bought and paid for just like the lawmakers and Judges up the rest of the chain [cnet.com].More realistic although it's a shame this lower court Judge probably won't profit personally from the case unlike those installed into prestigious positions and those accepting lobbying money for their political campaigns.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28512677</id>
	<title>Silly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246282320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish someone would burn the RIAA's building down, key their cars and BOYCOTT their music.  A mass outcry to stop playing the radio, stop paying for itunes, stop buying cds and stop pirating tunes would send a clear meassage to these jokers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish someone would burn the RIAA 's building down , key their cars and BOYCOTT their music .
A mass outcry to stop playing the radio , stop paying for itunes , stop buying cds and stop pirating tunes would send a clear meassage to these jokers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish someone would burn the RIAA's building down, key their cars and BOYCOTT their music.
A mass outcry to stop playing the radio, stop paying for itunes, stop buying cds and stop pirating tunes would send a clear meassage to these jokers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28511063</id>
	<title>Keeping quiet</title>
	<author>tygerstripes</author>
	<datestamp>1246308480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I'm not going to pass comment until NewYorkCountryLawyer has said his... Oh, wait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I 'm not going to pass comment until NewYorkCountryLawyer has said his... Oh , wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I'm not going to pass comment until NewYorkCountryLawyer has said his... Oh, wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507517</id>
	<title>Re:Curious interpretation of "the public"</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246187940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The distribution right encompasses distribution to the public.</i> </p><p>I can loan a DVD to a my neighbor. I can sell the disk or give it away. </p><p> What I can't do is scan it into the ultimate copy machine for the convenience of 15,000 of my closest friends on the P2P nets.</p><p>--- or the twelve on my Dark Net.</p><p>"Distribution to the Public" is a diversion, a red herring, and in NYCL's argument it has a particularly rancid smell.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The distribution right encompasses distribution to the public .
I can loan a DVD to a my neighbor .
I can sell the disk or give it away .
What I ca n't do is scan it into the ultimate copy machine for the convenience of 15,000 of my closest friends on the P2P nets.--- or the twelve on my Dark Net .
" Distribution to the Public " is a diversion , a red herring , and in NYCL 's argument it has a particularly rancid smell .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The distribution right encompasses distribution to the public.
I can loan a DVD to a my neighbor.
I can sell the disk or give it away.
What I can't do is scan it into the ultimate copy machine for the convenience of 15,000 of my closest friends on the P2P nets.--- or the twelve on my Dark Net.
"Distribution to the Public" is a diversion, a red herring, and in NYCL's argument it has a particularly rancid smell.
     </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507015</id>
	<title>Copyright term is now three years?</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1246183920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like a great boon to all mankind - a single judge gets to decide something that basically means the term of copyright is now three years.  Right?</p><p>Or does this sounds like it might be in actuallity something that shouldn't quite be decided this way?</p><p>Be very careful on which side you are cheering for.  Neither side is approaching this very well, and certainly the daughter in this case is (a) clearly in the wrong and (b) hoping for a reprive.  Maybe she will get it.</p><p>Where do you think Sony goes if all they have to do is "steal" some music, wait three years and then publish it under their own name?  After all, the statute of limitations will have run out, won't it?  I'll bet that someone like Sony might try this, either them or WalMart.</p><p>You see, what gets decided in the courtroom isn't just for happy little filesharers.  It applies to everyone else as well, no matter what their motives might be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like a great boon to all mankind - a single judge gets to decide something that basically means the term of copyright is now three years .
Right ? Or does this sounds like it might be in actuallity something that should n't quite be decided this way ? Be very careful on which side you are cheering for .
Neither side is approaching this very well , and certainly the daughter in this case is ( a ) clearly in the wrong and ( b ) hoping for a reprive .
Maybe she will get it.Where do you think Sony goes if all they have to do is " steal " some music , wait three years and then publish it under their own name ?
After all , the statute of limitations will have run out , wo n't it ?
I 'll bet that someone like Sony might try this , either them or WalMart.You see , what gets decided in the courtroom is n't just for happy little filesharers .
It applies to everyone else as well , no matter what their motives might be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like a great boon to all mankind - a single judge gets to decide something that basically means the term of copyright is now three years.
Right?Or does this sounds like it might be in actuallity something that shouldn't quite be decided this way?Be very careful on which side you are cheering for.
Neither side is approaching this very well, and certainly the daughter in this case is (a) clearly in the wrong and (b) hoping for a reprive.
Maybe she will get it.Where do you think Sony goes if all they have to do is "steal" some music, wait three years and then publish it under their own name?
After all, the statute of limitations will have run out, won't it?
I'll bet that someone like Sony might try this, either them or WalMart.You see, what gets decided in the courtroom isn't just for happy little filesharers.
It applies to everyone else as well, no matter what their motives might be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28508681</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright term is now three years?</title>
	<author>mikelieman</author>
	<datestamp>1246198620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, here's a thought...</p><p>Does any of the material at the center of this dispute even really QUALIFY for Constitutional protection?</p><p>If you recall, the Copyright Clause reads:</p><p>"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."</p><p>So... I'm at a loss as to how their Entertainment Product meets the Constitutional requirement of "promot(ing) the Progress of Science and useful Arts"...  AutoCAD, sure.. You build bridges with AutoCAD.  That's a damned 'useful Art'...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , here 's a thought...Does any of the material at the center of this dispute even really QUALIFY for Constitutional protection ? If you recall , the Copyright Clause reads : " To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. " So.. .
I 'm at a loss as to how their Entertainment Product meets the Constitutional requirement of " promot ( ing ) the Progress of Science and useful Arts " ... AutoCAD , sure.. You build bridges with AutoCAD .
That 's a damned 'useful Art'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, here's a thought...Does any of the material at the center of this dispute even really QUALIFY for Constitutional protection?If you recall, the Copyright Clause reads:"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."So...
I'm at a loss as to how their Entertainment Product meets the Constitutional requirement of "promot(ing) the Progress of Science and useful Arts"...  AutoCAD, sure.. You build bridges with AutoCAD.
That's a damned 'useful Art'...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28510837</id>
	<title>Re:Prosecution</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1246305960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Capitol Records v. Foster the court awarded $64,000 in attorneys fees against the RIAA, and in Atlantic Recording v. Andersen the court awarded $108,000.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Capitol Records v. Foster the court awarded $ 64,000 in attorneys fees against the RIAA , and in Atlantic Recording v. Andersen the court awarded $ 108,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Capitol Records v. Foster the court awarded $64,000 in attorneys fees against the RIAA, and in Atlantic Recording v. Andersen the court awarded $108,000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28510227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28511553</id>
	<title>Re:Zombie Movie</title>
	<author>thej1nx</author>
	<datestamp>1246271400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a way, RIAA is indeed an undead zombie.<p>

Pardon me, but isn't traditional purpose of so-called zombies is supposed to obey the orders and act as a proxy of the person who raised them?</p><p>

RIAA is just a bogeyman. A shadow puppet. It is the *media companies* that are suing you. It is *media companies* like Sony, Warner Bros. etc. which are harassing their own consumers. I am not aware of "RIAA" producing any songs.</p><p>

Sony would not like the negative publicity of being caught suing a 84 year old grandmother. So it banded up with other companies to make a dummy face which people can hate, instead of sony itself or other such companies. Corporations hate the negative publicity. That is the only place where we can hurt them. And when you hate/attack the puppet instead of its master, you are being just the dumb person Sony and its ilk assumed you to be, and playing their game their way.</p><p>

You want RIAA to die? Stop naming RIAA in these stories as the suing party. It is not that tough to find out which company in the cabal is alleging the piracy. Name *them* when you report the stories of blind homeless veteran being sued by them.</p><p>

If someone sues you with malice, should you hate the lawyer they have hired, or the guy who is actually suing you and paying the lawyer to make your life hell?</p><p>

Sony and its pals do these stunts because they know you will hate the "RIAA" instead of them, and they will get to keep their rosy image and be safe from any direct public-backlash. Change the rules, and attack the voodoo witchdoctor. And then see the zombies die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a way , RIAA is indeed an undead zombie .
Pardon me , but is n't traditional purpose of so-called zombies is supposed to obey the orders and act as a proxy of the person who raised them ?
RIAA is just a bogeyman .
A shadow puppet .
It is the * media companies * that are suing you .
It is * media companies * like Sony , Warner Bros. etc. which are harassing their own consumers .
I am not aware of " RIAA " producing any songs .
Sony would not like the negative publicity of being caught suing a 84 year old grandmother .
So it banded up with other companies to make a dummy face which people can hate , instead of sony itself or other such companies .
Corporations hate the negative publicity .
That is the only place where we can hurt them .
And when you hate/attack the puppet instead of its master , you are being just the dumb person Sony and its ilk assumed you to be , and playing their game their way .
You want RIAA to die ?
Stop naming RIAA in these stories as the suing party .
It is not that tough to find out which company in the cabal is alleging the piracy .
Name * them * when you report the stories of blind homeless veteran being sued by them .
If someone sues you with malice , should you hate the lawyer they have hired , or the guy who is actually suing you and paying the lawyer to make your life hell ?
Sony and its pals do these stunts because they know you will hate the " RIAA " instead of them , and they will get to keep their rosy image and be safe from any direct public-backlash .
Change the rules , and attack the voodoo witchdoctor .
And then see the zombies die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a way, RIAA is indeed an undead zombie.
Pardon me, but isn't traditional purpose of so-called zombies is supposed to obey the orders and act as a proxy of the person who raised them?
RIAA is just a bogeyman.
A shadow puppet.
It is the *media companies* that are suing you.
It is *media companies* like Sony, Warner Bros. etc. which are harassing their own consumers.
I am not aware of "RIAA" producing any songs.
Sony would not like the negative publicity of being caught suing a 84 year old grandmother.
So it banded up with other companies to make a dummy face which people can hate, instead of sony itself or other such companies.
Corporations hate the negative publicity.
That is the only place where we can hurt them.
And when you hate/attack the puppet instead of its master, you are being just the dumb person Sony and its ilk assumed you to be, and playing their game their way.
You want RIAA to die?
Stop naming RIAA in these stories as the suing party.
It is not that tough to find out which company in the cabal is alleging the piracy.
Name *them* when you report the stories of blind homeless veteran being sued by them.
If someone sues you with malice, should you hate the lawyer they have hired, or the guy who is actually suing you and paying the lawyer to make your life hell?
Sony and its pals do these stunts because they know you will hate the "RIAA" instead of them, and they will get to keep their rosy image and be safe from any direct public-backlash.
Change the rules, and attack the voodoo witchdoctor.
And then see the zombies die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28509231</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright term is now three years?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246204800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm willing to bet that a lot of people think that the term of copyright being 3 years would be a good thing.  Hell, I'd guess that there are quite a few that think that would be too long still.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm willing to bet that a lot of people think that the term of copyright being 3 years would be a good thing .
Hell , I 'd guess that there are quite a few that think that would be too long still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm willing to bet that a lot of people think that the term of copyright being 3 years would be a good thing.
Hell, I'd guess that there are quite a few that think that would be too long still.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507323</id>
	<title>Re:Zombie Movie</title>
	<author>BobSixtyFour</author>
	<datestamp>1246186680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A dead undead. That'll be the day!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A dead undead .
That 'll be the day !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A dead undead.
That'll be the day!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28510601</id>
	<title>The pricing seems different: $750/song</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1246217220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I note that this case claims a "mere" USD 750 per infringement.  This is an interesting low amount.</p><p>Other than that, when-oh-when will we finally see sanctions for this sort of legal abuse?  I can't see anyone regaining any sort of respect for the law and the legal system whilst this sort of shenanigans continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I note that this case claims a " mere " USD 750 per infringement .
This is an interesting low amount.Other than that , when-oh-when will we finally see sanctions for this sort of legal abuse ?
I ca n't see anyone regaining any sort of respect for the law and the legal system whilst this sort of shenanigans continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I note that this case claims a "mere" USD 750 per infringement.
This is an interesting low amount.Other than that, when-oh-when will we finally see sanctions for this sort of legal abuse?
I can't see anyone regaining any sort of respect for the law and the legal system whilst this sort of shenanigans continue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28511191</id>
	<title>Summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No offence to NYCL, but I've got a few problems with this commentary.</p><p>Firstly and perhaps most surprisingly, the characterisation of RIAA's lawyers as being somehow panicked or demonstrating fear by asking the judge not to make the summary judgment. We don't know what their 'letter' is, and without knowing what the basis is, we can't know they don't have some kind of legal basis for denying the motion. So let's find out what the basis is before criticising or mocking the attempt.</p><p>Also I'm not from the jurisdiction but the summary leaves me in doubt (or just not informed) as to whether 'writing to the judge' is somehow inappropriate or is just a quaint term for a legitimate process. Eg in Australia you can have an application in the judge's 'chambers' which is in reality in open court, with both parties notified and able to appear, and on public record. Is 'writing a letter' ordinary, or somehow inappropriate or wrongful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No offence to NYCL , but I 've got a few problems with this commentary.Firstly and perhaps most surprisingly , the characterisation of RIAA 's lawyers as being somehow panicked or demonstrating fear by asking the judge not to make the summary judgment .
We do n't know what their 'letter ' is , and without knowing what the basis is , we ca n't know they do n't have some kind of legal basis for denying the motion .
So let 's find out what the basis is before criticising or mocking the attempt.Also I 'm not from the jurisdiction but the summary leaves me in doubt ( or just not informed ) as to whether 'writing to the judge ' is somehow inappropriate or is just a quaint term for a legitimate process .
Eg in Australia you can have an application in the judge 's 'chambers ' which is in reality in open court , with both parties notified and able to appear , and on public record .
Is 'writing a letter ' ordinary , or somehow inappropriate or wrongful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No offence to NYCL, but I've got a few problems with this commentary.Firstly and perhaps most surprisingly, the characterisation of RIAA's lawyers as being somehow panicked or demonstrating fear by asking the judge not to make the summary judgment.
We don't know what their 'letter' is, and without knowing what the basis is, we can't know they don't have some kind of legal basis for denying the motion.
So let's find out what the basis is before criticising or mocking the attempt.Also I'm not from the jurisdiction but the summary leaves me in doubt (or just not informed) as to whether 'writing to the judge' is somehow inappropriate or is just a quaint term for a legitimate process.
Eg in Australia you can have an application in the judge's 'chambers' which is in reality in open court, with both parties notified and able to appear, and on public record.
Is 'writing a letter' ordinary, or somehow inappropriate or wrongful?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506571</id>
	<title>Re:Zombie Movie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246179960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly it's much more like JAWS... where the giant shark eats everyone for a while, then someone feeds it explosives.  It then rains shark guts.</p><p>I will be sooooo happy when it rains RIAA guts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly it 's much more like JAWS... where the giant shark eats everyone for a while , then someone feeds it explosives .
It then rains shark guts.I will be sooooo happy when it rains RIAA guts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly it's much more like JAWS... where the giant shark eats everyone for a while, then someone feeds it explosives.
It then rains shark guts.I will be sooooo happy when it rains RIAA guts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28516541</id>
	<title>Audrey Amurao Rick Rolls RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246300860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=Lava\_v\_Amurao2, which appears to be the plaintiff's deposition (I'm no lawyer ok), on page 8 of the document (14 of the PDF), item m. reads "August 19, 2005 - Rick Astley, "Never gonna give you up", (9:09:06PM);". Forensic definitely had to listen to the song and are thus Rick Rolled, but does the mere fact that it appears in some legal paper also make the judge Rick Rolled?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading http : //beckermanlegal.com/pdf/ ? file = /Documents.htm&amp;s = Lava \ _v \ _Amurao2 , which appears to be the plaintiff 's deposition ( I 'm no lawyer ok ) , on page 8 of the document ( 14 of the PDF ) , item m. reads " August 19 , 2005 - Rick Astley , " Never gon na give you up " , ( 9 : 09 : 06PM ) ; " .
Forensic definitely had to listen to the song and are thus Rick Rolled , but does the mere fact that it appears in some legal paper also make the judge Rick Rolled ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=Lava\_v\_Amurao2, which appears to be the plaintiff's deposition (I'm no lawyer ok), on page 8 of the document (14 of the PDF), item m. reads "August 19, 2005 - Rick Astley, "Never gonna give you up", (9:09:06PM);".
Forensic definitely had to listen to the song and are thus Rick Rolled, but does the mere fact that it appears in some legal paper also make the judge Rick Rolled?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507275</id>
	<title>"Not to allow her to make it"</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1246186320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>get a LOAD of that BULLSHIT. what kind of twisted system is american legal system that, a judge can DENY a legal move by any of the parties. hey ! i have evidence ! but i cant use it - why ? because IT IS DENIED BY APPLICATION OF THE OTHER PARTY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>get a LOAD of that BULLSHIT .
what kind of twisted system is american legal system that , a judge can DENY a legal move by any of the parties .
hey !
i have evidence !
but i cant use it - why ?
because IT IS DENIED BY APPLICATION OF THE OTHER PARTY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get a LOAD of that BULLSHIT.
what kind of twisted system is american legal system that, a judge can DENY a legal move by any of the parties.
hey !
i have evidence !
but i cant use it - why ?
because IT IS DENIED BY APPLICATION OF THE OTHER PARTY.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28516985</id>
	<title>Re:Zombie Movie</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1246302600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If someone sues you with malice, should you hate the lawyer they have hired, or the guy who is actually suing you and paying the lawyer to make your life hell?</p></div><p>The answer to that is "Yes".</p><p>The guy hiring the lawyer (and thus the person bringing the suit) is the moving force of the suit.  But the lawyer has the option to work for the guy, or not.  For a suit that is meritless, he'll get censured for bringing it to the court.  You might also look up <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious\_prosecution" title="wikipedia.org">malicious prosecution</a> [wikipedia.org] while you're at it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone sues you with malice , should you hate the lawyer they have hired , or the guy who is actually suing you and paying the lawyer to make your life hell ? The answer to that is " Yes " .The guy hiring the lawyer ( and thus the person bringing the suit ) is the moving force of the suit .
But the lawyer has the option to work for the guy , or not .
For a suit that is meritless , he 'll get censured for bringing it to the court .
You might also look up malicious prosecution [ wikipedia.org ] while you 're at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone sues you with malice, should you hate the lawyer they have hired, or the guy who is actually suing you and paying the lawyer to make your life hell?The answer to that is "Yes".The guy hiring the lawyer (and thus the person bringing the suit) is the moving force of the suit.
But the lawyer has the option to work for the guy, or not.
For a suit that is meritless, he'll get censured for bringing it to the court.
You might also look up malicious prosecution [wikipedia.org] while you're at it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28511553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507101</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246184760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They both will lose and the RIAA will win, this will continue until you get the government to cut its bond with the MPAA/RIAA and its unlawful backing of a capitalist consumer entertainment product via the FBI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They both will lose and the RIAA will win , this will continue until you get the government to cut its bond with the MPAA/RIAA and its unlawful backing of a capitalist consumer entertainment product via the FBI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They both will lose and the RIAA will win, this will continue until you get the government to cut its bond with the MPAA/RIAA and its unlawful backing of a capitalist consumer entertainment product via the FBI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506665</id>
	<title>Curious interpretation of "the public"</title>
	<author>superdana</author>
	<datestamp>1246180740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure how I feel about this bit (emphasis in original):<br>
<br>
<i>The distribution right encompasses distribution <b>to the public.</b> But song files which reside on a computer hard drive are only accessible to someone else who has the same file-sharing software.</i> <br>
<br>
Maybe "the public" has some special meaning in Lawyer Town, but the fact that file-sharing software is required to access shared files doesn't convince me personally that the files aren't available to the public. It's not as though there is some privileged minority of people who have access to file-sharing software. Anyone can download it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure how I feel about this bit ( emphasis in original ) : The distribution right encompasses distribution to the public .
But song files which reside on a computer hard drive are only accessible to someone else who has the same file-sharing software .
Maybe " the public " has some special meaning in Lawyer Town , but the fact that file-sharing software is required to access shared files does n't convince me personally that the files are n't available to the public .
It 's not as though there is some privileged minority of people who have access to file-sharing software .
Anyone can download it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure how I feel about this bit (emphasis in original):

The distribution right encompasses distribution to the public.
But song files which reside on a computer hard drive are only accessible to someone else who has the same file-sharing software.
Maybe "the public" has some special meaning in Lawyer Town, but the fact that file-sharing software is required to access shared files doesn't convince me personally that the files aren't available to the public.
It's not as though there is some privileged minority of people who have access to file-sharing software.
Anyone can download it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28510837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28510227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28516985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28511553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28512207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28509231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28512859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_196227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28508681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_196227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28508681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28509231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_196227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28510227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28510837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_196227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_196227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_196227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_196227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28512859
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_196227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_196227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28512207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28511553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28516985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28506571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_196227.28507707
</commentlist>
</conversation>
