<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_01_1332215</id>
	<title>RIAA Victory Over Usenet.com In Copyright Case</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246457340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ozydingo writes <i>"The RIAA has <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023\_3-10276607-93.html">scored a victory in a decision on a copyright case</a> that they <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/16/1918204&amp;tid=123">filed back in 2007</a>. US District Judge Harold Baer <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/06/riaa-wins-case-against-usenetcom-based.html">ruled in favor of the music industry</a> on all its main theories: that Usenet.com is guilty of direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement. In addition, and perhaps most important for future cases, Baer said that Usenet.com can't claim protection under the Sony Betamax decision stating that companies can't be held liable of contributory infringement if the device is 'capable of significant non-infringing uses.' Bear noted that Usenet.com differed from Sony in that the sale of a Betamax recorder was a one-time deal, while Usenet.com's interaction with its users was an ongoing relationship.  The RIAA stated in a brief note, 'We're pleased that the court recognized not just that Usenet.com directly infringed the record companies' copyrights but also <a href="http://riaa.com/newsitem.php?news\_month\_filter=&amp;news\_year\_filter=&amp;resultpage=&amp;id=B82854F8-F5A1-77A1-E1B6-846E516D90B0">took action against the defendants</a> for their egregious litigation misconduct.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ozydingo writes " The RIAA has scored a victory in a decision on a copyright case that they filed back in 2007 .
US District Judge Harold Baer ruled in favor of the music industry on all its main theories : that Usenet.com is guilty of direct , contributory , and vicarious infringement .
In addition , and perhaps most important for future cases , Baer said that Usenet.com ca n't claim protection under the Sony Betamax decision stating that companies ca n't be held liable of contributory infringement if the device is 'capable of significant non-infringing uses .
' Bear noted that Usenet.com differed from Sony in that the sale of a Betamax recorder was a one-time deal , while Usenet.com 's interaction with its users was an ongoing relationship .
The RIAA stated in a brief note , 'We 're pleased that the court recognized not just that Usenet.com directly infringed the record companies ' copyrights but also took action against the defendants for their egregious litigation misconduct .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ozydingo writes "The RIAA has scored a victory in a decision on a copyright case that they filed back in 2007.
US District Judge Harold Baer ruled in favor of the music industry on all its main theories: that Usenet.com is guilty of direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement.
In addition, and perhaps most important for future cases, Baer said that Usenet.com can't claim protection under the Sony Betamax decision stating that companies can't be held liable of contributory infringement if the device is 'capable of significant non-infringing uses.
' Bear noted that Usenet.com differed from Sony in that the sale of a Betamax recorder was a one-time deal, while Usenet.com's interaction with its users was an ongoing relationship.
The RIAA stated in a brief note, 'We're pleased that the court recognized not just that Usenet.com directly infringed the record companies' copyrights but also took action against the defendants for their egregious litigation misconduct.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542551</id>
	<title>Re:Any good news lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm curious of when that will happen. When bill C-61 (the Canadian DMCA) was introduced, there was way more noise from the general public than I expected. I think the average (younger) citizen is starting to understand what's going on, even if they don't seem to care yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious of when that will happen .
When bill C-61 ( the Canadian DMCA ) was introduced , there was way more noise from the general public than I expected .
I think the average ( younger ) citizen is starting to understand what 's going on , even if they do n't seem to care yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious of when that will happen.
When bill C-61 (the Canadian DMCA) was introduced, there was way more noise from the general public than I expected.
I think the average (younger) citizen is starting to understand what's going on, even if they don't seem to care yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542233</id>
	<title>How Many Separate Cases?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246462680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm curious - we frequently hear of the RIAA suing this, that, and the other thing.  Is there somewhere we can go to see just how many concurrent ongoing cases involve the RIAA on a global scale?
<br> <br>
I'm guessing no.
<br> <br>
Though I posit that if we had access to a simple count of current litigation broken down by who is suing whom, the RIAA would be somewhere near the top in terms of the number of suits they have filed and are currently working.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious - we frequently hear of the RIAA suing this , that , and the other thing .
Is there somewhere we can go to see just how many concurrent ongoing cases involve the RIAA on a global scale ?
I 'm guessing no .
Though I posit that if we had access to a simple count of current litigation broken down by who is suing whom , the RIAA would be somewhere near the top in terms of the number of suits they have filed and are currently working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious - we frequently hear of the RIAA suing this, that, and the other thing.
Is there somewhere we can go to see just how many concurrent ongoing cases involve the RIAA on a global scale?
I'm guessing no.
Though I posit that if we had access to a simple count of current litigation broken down by who is suing whom, the RIAA would be somewhere near the top in terms of the number of suits they have filed and are currently working.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28561839</id>
	<title>The clue is in the name.</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1246563900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This has nothing to do with the rights of the artists. It's purely about the copyright.</p></div></blockquote><p>By default, copyright belongs to the artist.  It's the right to restrict or allow, as they see fit, who may copy it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has nothing to do with the rights of the artists .
It 's purely about the copyright.By default , copyright belongs to the artist .
It 's the right to restrict or allow , as they see fit , who may copy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has nothing to do with the rights of the artists.
It's purely about the copyright.By default, copyright belongs to the artist.
It's the right to restrict or allow, as they see fit, who may copy it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542955</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>computational super</author>
	<datestamp>1246465800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I sure wish I could figure out which service provider the people not using Usenet are not using, because the ones I've been not using sure don't have anything worth not downloading to not download these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I sure wish I could figure out which service provider the people not using Usenet are not using , because the ones I 've been not using sure do n't have anything worth not downloading to not download these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I sure wish I could figure out which service provider the people not using Usenet are not using, because the ones I've been not using sure don't have anything worth not downloading to not download these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542299</id>
	<title>Re:So can you sue Google for finding my ISO files?</title>
	<author>zwei2stein</author>
	<datestamp>1246463040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope.</p><p>a) Google actually reacts to DMCA-like request and does remove search results if companies ask them to. see: <a href="http://www.google.com/dmca.html" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/dmca.html</a> [google.com]</p><p>b) Their business model is not build around enabling piracy, very much unlike sites that depends on it to exists and make profit, hence a) works and there is no reason nor legal grounds to sue them.</p><p>Compared to cookie cutter pirate site where a) will not ever work because b) they will be out of business if they complied and removed copyrighted material as they would be out of content and ad revenue fast. At best they will post childish reaction on their site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope.a ) Google actually reacts to DMCA-like request and does remove search results if companies ask them to .
see : http : //www.google.com/dmca.html [ google.com ] b ) Their business model is not build around enabling piracy , very much unlike sites that depends on it to exists and make profit , hence a ) works and there is no reason nor legal grounds to sue them.Compared to cookie cutter pirate site where a ) will not ever work because b ) they will be out of business if they complied and removed copyrighted material as they would be out of content and ad revenue fast .
At best they will post childish reaction on their site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.a) Google actually reacts to DMCA-like request and does remove search results if companies ask them to.
see: http://www.google.com/dmca.html [google.com]b) Their business model is not build around enabling piracy, very much unlike sites that depends on it to exists and make profit, hence a) works and there is no reason nor legal grounds to sue them.Compared to cookie cutter pirate site where a) will not ever work because b) they will be out of business if they complied and removed copyrighted material as they would be out of content and ad revenue fast.
At best they will post childish reaction on their site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545521</id>
	<title>Re:Gun analogy</title>
	<author>Noren</author>
	<datestamp>1246473300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guns are capable of lethal, criminal uses, but less than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.001\% of the ten billion rounds of ammunition sold annually in the US are used in a violent crime.

so ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guns are capable of lethal , criminal uses , but less than .001 \ % of the ten billion rounds of ammunition sold annually in the US are used in a violent crime .
so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guns are capable of lethal, criminal uses, but less than .001\% of the ten billion rounds of ammunition sold annually in the US are used in a violent crime.
so ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542881</id>
	<title>I Find This Troubling</title>
	<author>Slashdot Parent</author>
	<datestamp>1246465440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's because I'm not really involved in the legal system, but I find the way the jduge sanctioned usenet.com to be very troubling.</p><p>If you'll read the article, you'll see that usenet.com destroyed evidence and arranged for witnesses against it to be out of the country for the trial.  For this, usenet.com absolutely deserves to be sanctioned.</p><p>But the judge's sanction was effectively to rewrite the DMCA.  Lawmakers inserted a Safe Harbor provision into the DMCA that shielded service providers from responsibility for criminal activity of their users.  When Judge Baer sanctioned usenet.com by preventing them from raising the Safe Harbor defense, he effectively rewrote the DMCA in a way that lawmakers never intended!</p><p>Without the Safe Harbor defense, usenet.com's case was lost.  I'm not sure what the appropriate sanction should be for usenet.com's blatant discovery violations, but a judge rewriting a law as it applies to just one company seems wrong to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's because I 'm not really involved in the legal system , but I find the way the jduge sanctioned usenet.com to be very troubling.If you 'll read the article , you 'll see that usenet.com destroyed evidence and arranged for witnesses against it to be out of the country for the trial .
For this , usenet.com absolutely deserves to be sanctioned.But the judge 's sanction was effectively to rewrite the DMCA .
Lawmakers inserted a Safe Harbor provision into the DMCA that shielded service providers from responsibility for criminal activity of their users .
When Judge Baer sanctioned usenet.com by preventing them from raising the Safe Harbor defense , he effectively rewrote the DMCA in a way that lawmakers never intended ! Without the Safe Harbor defense , usenet.com 's case was lost .
I 'm not sure what the appropriate sanction should be for usenet.com 's blatant discovery violations , but a judge rewriting a law as it applies to just one company seems wrong to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's because I'm not really involved in the legal system, but I find the way the jduge sanctioned usenet.com to be very troubling.If you'll read the article, you'll see that usenet.com destroyed evidence and arranged for witnesses against it to be out of the country for the trial.
For this, usenet.com absolutely deserves to be sanctioned.But the judge's sanction was effectively to rewrite the DMCA.
Lawmakers inserted a Safe Harbor provision into the DMCA that shielded service providers from responsibility for criminal activity of their users.
When Judge Baer sanctioned usenet.com by preventing them from raising the Safe Harbor defense, he effectively rewrote the DMCA in a way that lawmakers never intended!Without the Safe Harbor defense, usenet.com's case was lost.
I'm not sure what the appropriate sanction should be for usenet.com's blatant discovery violations, but a judge rewriting a law as it applies to just one company seems wrong to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543179</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1246466580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I just can't wrap my head around all this frivolous suing.</i></p><p>It's not that hard.</p><p>The underlying fact that has changed from the days of cassette tapes is that today we live in a mostly digital world.  The ability to make perfect copies and distribute them on a scale unimagined just a few years ago changes all the rules.  That's not to say, however, that cassettes or other analogue recordings weren't an issue way back when (recall the diatribes of Jack Valenti predicting the death of the movie industry and comparing VCRs to the Boston Strangler), just that those issues for the content industry have been upgraded from problematic to critical.</p><p>What hasn't changed, and what represents the ultimate challenge for the industry, is basic human nature.  The behaviour you described (making copies and sharing them) is very much alive and well.  Any effort to change that makes as much as sense as trying teach preschoolers, for example, that "sharing is good unless local laws state otherwise", and is doomed to fail.  That's not to say we won't write even more laws and create even more "criminals" in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just ca n't wrap my head around all this frivolous suing.It 's not that hard.The underlying fact that has changed from the days of cassette tapes is that today we live in a mostly digital world .
The ability to make perfect copies and distribute them on a scale unimagined just a few years ago changes all the rules .
That 's not to say , however , that cassettes or other analogue recordings were n't an issue way back when ( recall the diatribes of Jack Valenti predicting the death of the movie industry and comparing VCRs to the Boston Strangler ) , just that those issues for the content industry have been upgraded from problematic to critical.What has n't changed , and what represents the ultimate challenge for the industry , is basic human nature .
The behaviour you described ( making copies and sharing them ) is very much alive and well .
Any effort to change that makes as much as sense as trying teach preschoolers , for example , that " sharing is good unless local laws state otherwise " , and is doomed to fail .
That 's not to say we wo n't write even more laws and create even more " criminals " in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just can't wrap my head around all this frivolous suing.It's not that hard.The underlying fact that has changed from the days of cassette tapes is that today we live in a mostly digital world.
The ability to make perfect copies and distribute them on a scale unimagined just a few years ago changes all the rules.
That's not to say, however, that cassettes or other analogue recordings weren't an issue way back when (recall the diatribes of Jack Valenti predicting the death of the movie industry and comparing VCRs to the Boston Strangler), just that those issues for the content industry have been upgraded from problematic to critical.What hasn't changed, and what represents the ultimate challenge for the industry, is basic human nature.
The behaviour you described (making copies and sharing them) is very much alive and well.
Any effort to change that makes as much as sense as trying teach preschoolers, for example, that "sharing is good unless local laws state otherwise", and is doomed to fail.
That's not to say we won't write even more laws and create even more "criminals" in the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541949</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>The Pirou</author>
	<datestamp>1246461600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>When people are paying subscription fees to binary aggregators like Newzbin and Giganews to get 90\% of their daily media (music, movies, etc) content it's understandable why the RIAA is taking such steps.
Of course this isn't the trading of copyrighted files - it's a simple download and doesn't behave the same way as P2P networks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When people are paying subscription fees to binary aggregators like Newzbin and Giganews to get 90 \ % of their daily media ( music , movies , etc ) content it 's understandable why the RIAA is taking such steps .
Of course this is n't the trading of copyrighted files - it 's a simple download and does n't behave the same way as P2P networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people are paying subscription fees to binary aggregators like Newzbin and Giganews to get 90\% of their daily media (music, movies, etc) content it's understandable why the RIAA is taking such steps.
Of course this isn't the trading of copyrighted files - it's a simple download and doesn't behave the same way as P2P networks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545619</id>
	<title>Re:Digital Changed The Game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But what happened if the friend tried to make a copy for his friend, and that other friend tried to make a copy for his other friend.  Surely you remember that, don't you?  The quality stank so badly nobody wanted to listen to that copy, thanks to lossy analog dubbing.</p><p>With digital media, each copy is lossless, so if a friend copies a song for a friend, who copies it for another friend... even 10, 20, 1000 friends down the chain, and the music still has its original quality.</p></div><p>Additionally, even using high-speed dub takes time and manpower and money (blank tapes).  You could make a copy for a friend or two, and maybe that cute girl in your science lab, but not for everyone in the school.  By contrast, if I decide to share something on Bittorrent or Usenet.com or whatever, I push a button, wander off, and by the time I get up the next morning, I could have shared it with half the school, at no cost (today's hard drives can fit hundreds of thousands of songs, vs. a handful on a cassette tape).</p><p>This scale difference matters for two reasons.  First of all, it's the massive increase in the amount of sharing possible from one sale.  At worst in the tape era, you could make 10 copies of that tape, whereas I could make 100 copies today during my lunch break.  Secondly, it creates an atmosphere where it's possible to get all the music you want exclusively from piracy.  In your tape-era, I could only "pirate" the songs my immediate friends had purchased originals (or maybe first-gen duplicates) of in their libraries.  For any given tape, my odds of finding a "pirate-able copy" on the "sneaker-net" are fairly low.  There's a variable chance that I would have no choice but to buy the tape.  By contrast, today's Usenet.com or PirateBay or what-have-you can all but guarantee that any song I might want to acquire can be pirated easily.  I can't imagine that there exist many songs that you can't find a copy of to pirate within 10 minutes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what happened if the friend tried to make a copy for his friend , and that other friend tried to make a copy for his other friend .
Surely you remember that , do n't you ?
The quality stank so badly nobody wanted to listen to that copy , thanks to lossy analog dubbing.With digital media , each copy is lossless , so if a friend copies a song for a friend , who copies it for another friend... even 10 , 20 , 1000 friends down the chain , and the music still has its original quality.Additionally , even using high-speed dub takes time and manpower and money ( blank tapes ) .
You could make a copy for a friend or two , and maybe that cute girl in your science lab , but not for everyone in the school .
By contrast , if I decide to share something on Bittorrent or Usenet.com or whatever , I push a button , wander off , and by the time I get up the next morning , I could have shared it with half the school , at no cost ( today 's hard drives can fit hundreds of thousands of songs , vs. a handful on a cassette tape ) .This scale difference matters for two reasons .
First of all , it 's the massive increase in the amount of sharing possible from one sale .
At worst in the tape era , you could make 10 copies of that tape , whereas I could make 100 copies today during my lunch break .
Secondly , it creates an atmosphere where it 's possible to get all the music you want exclusively from piracy .
In your tape-era , I could only " pirate " the songs my immediate friends had purchased originals ( or maybe first-gen duplicates ) of in their libraries .
For any given tape , my odds of finding a " pirate-able copy " on the " sneaker-net " are fairly low .
There 's a variable chance that I would have no choice but to buy the tape .
By contrast , today 's Usenet.com or PirateBay or what-have-you can all but guarantee that any song I might want to acquire can be pirated easily .
I ca n't imagine that there exist many songs that you ca n't find a copy of to pirate within 10 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what happened if the friend tried to make a copy for his friend, and that other friend tried to make a copy for his other friend.
Surely you remember that, don't you?
The quality stank so badly nobody wanted to listen to that copy, thanks to lossy analog dubbing.With digital media, each copy is lossless, so if a friend copies a song for a friend, who copies it for another friend... even 10, 20, 1000 friends down the chain, and the music still has its original quality.Additionally, even using high-speed dub takes time and manpower and money (blank tapes).
You could make a copy for a friend or two, and maybe that cute girl in your science lab, but not for everyone in the school.
By contrast, if I decide to share something on Bittorrent or Usenet.com or whatever, I push a button, wander off, and by the time I get up the next morning, I could have shared it with half the school, at no cost (today's hard drives can fit hundreds of thousands of songs, vs. a handful on a cassette tape).This scale difference matters for two reasons.
First of all, it's the massive increase in the amount of sharing possible from one sale.
At worst in the tape era, you could make 10 copies of that tape, whereas I could make 100 copies today during my lunch break.
Secondly, it creates an atmosphere where it's possible to get all the music you want exclusively from piracy.
In your tape-era, I could only "pirate" the songs my immediate friends had purchased originals (or maybe first-gen duplicates) of in their libraries.
For any given tape, my odds of finding a "pirate-able copy" on the "sneaker-net" are fairly low.
There's a variable chance that I would have no choice but to buy the tape.
By contrast, today's Usenet.com or PirateBay or what-have-you can all but guarantee that any song I might want to acquire can be pirated easily.
I can't imagine that there exist many songs that you can't find a copy of to pirate within 10 minutes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542891</id>
	<title>hahahah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246465500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just illegally traded 300 albums online thanks to P2P. I did that by hiring an illegal alien from Home Depot to do it! All while being an underage kid driving without a license backwards with a large bag of weed in the car held by a rebellious and naked nun!</p><p>Top that RIAA!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just illegally traded 300 albums online thanks to P2P .
I did that by hiring an illegal alien from Home Depot to do it !
All while being an underage kid driving without a license backwards with a large bag of weed in the car held by a rebellious and naked nun ! Top that RIAA ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just illegally traded 300 albums online thanks to P2P.
I did that by hiring an illegal alien from Home Depot to do it!
All while being an underage kid driving without a license backwards with a large bag of weed in the car held by a rebellious and naked nun!Top that RIAA!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28550209</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246444620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regardless of it not being 'usenet' its still a setback and bad precedent for people that believe in digital freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of it not being 'usenet ' its still a setback and bad precedent for people that believe in digital freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of it not being 'usenet' its still a setback and bad precedent for people that believe in digital freedom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544265</id>
	<title>Gun analogy</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1246469640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>guns are also capable of non lethal, non criminal uses. but close to 90\% of the violent crimes involve a gun.</p><p>so ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>guns are also capable of non lethal , non criminal uses .
but close to 90 \ % of the violent crimes involve a gun.so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>guns are also capable of non lethal, non criminal uses.
but close to 90\% of the violent crimes involve a gun.so ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541877</id>
	<title>NYCL around?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246461300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what does this mean for my precious, precious news....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what does this mean for my precious , precious news... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what does this mean for my precious, precious news....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544079</id>
	<title>Re:If you ever go to court...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246469100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And, if you don't like the law, work to change it, don't sell ways to get around it. Bad laws exist because people pretend they are helpless to change them.</i> </p><blockquote><div><p>As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong. It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way; its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconciliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death which convulse the body.<br>Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849</p></div></blockquote><p>I have other things to do with my life than obeying and trying to fix bad laws.  Don't lay the blame on me, bad laws exist because people enforce them.  Direct your ire at those who actively promote bad laws, not those who are just trying to live their lives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , if you do n't like the law , work to change it , do n't sell ways to get around it .
Bad laws exist because people pretend they are helpless to change them .
As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil , I know not of such ways .
They take too much time , and a man 's life will be gone .
I have other affairs to attend to .
I came into this world , not chiefly to make this a good place to live in , but to live in it , be it good or bad .
A man has not everything to do , but something ; and because he can not do everything , it is not necessary that he should do something wrong .
It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me ; and if they should not hear my petition , what should I do then ?
But in this case the State has provided no way ; its very Constitution is the evil .
This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconciliatory ; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it .
So is all change for the better , like birth and death which convulse the body.Henry David Thoreau , Civil Disobedience , 1849I have other things to do with my life than obeying and trying to fix bad laws .
Do n't lay the blame on me , bad laws exist because people enforce them .
Direct your ire at those who actively promote bad laws , not those who are just trying to live their lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, if you don't like the law, work to change it, don't sell ways to get around it.
Bad laws exist because people pretend they are helpless to change them.
As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways.
They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone.
I have other affairs to attend to.
I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.
A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong.
It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then?
But in this case the State has provided no way; its very Constitution is the evil.
This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconciliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it.
So is all change for the better, like birth and death which convulse the body.Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849I have other things to do with my life than obeying and trying to fix bad laws.
Don't lay the blame on me, bad laws exist because people enforce them.
Direct your ire at those who actively promote bad laws, not those who are just trying to live their lives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28551903</id>
	<title>Re:a new age in file-sharing is born</title>
	<author>mad\_dog3283</author>
	<datestamp>1246452660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or buy an MP3 player with MSC mode. Take it to a friends house and copy all of your music onto his hard drive. Then have him copy his music onto your MP3 player. (For the uninformed, MSC is USB Mass Storage Class mode, which means that your player presents itself to your OS as just another flash drive, meaning that you don't have to install any software in order to transfer files to/from it.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or buy an MP3 player with MSC mode .
Take it to a friends house and copy all of your music onto his hard drive .
Then have him copy his music onto your MP3 player .
( For the uninformed , MSC is USB Mass Storage Class mode , which means that your player presents itself to your OS as just another flash drive , meaning that you do n't have to install any software in order to transfer files to/from it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or buy an MP3 player with MSC mode.
Take it to a friends house and copy all of your music onto his hard drive.
Then have him copy his music onto your MP3 player.
(For the uninformed, MSC is USB Mass Storage Class mode, which means that your player presents itself to your OS as just another flash drive, meaning that you don't have to install any software in order to transfer files to/from it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28552453</id>
	<title>Egregious misconduct?</title>
	<author>Brain Damaged Bogan</author>
	<datestamp>1246456200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The RIAA stated in a brief note, 'We're pleased that the court recognized not just that Usenet.com directly infringed the record companies' copyrights but also took action against the defendants for their <strong>egregious litigation misconduct.</strong>'"
<br> <br>
that's the pot calling the kettle black.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The RIAA stated in a brief note , 'We 're pleased that the court recognized not just that Usenet.com directly infringed the record companies ' copyrights but also took action against the defendants for their egregious litigation misconduct .
' " that 's the pot calling the kettle black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The RIAA stated in a brief note, 'We're pleased that the court recognized not just that Usenet.com directly infringed the record companies' copyrights but also took action against the defendants for their egregious litigation misconduct.
'"
 
that's the pot calling the kettle black.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544269</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1246469640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that you Pinocchio?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that you Pinocchio ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that you Pinocchio?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542679</id>
	<title>Re:If you ever go to court...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only partially.  Ideally the judge is there just to make sure the court works according to the law so his personal feelings should never come into it.  Never happens that way but that is the theory.  I know that the last time I was in court, I pissed off the judge and landed behind bars for a few days.  Not even sure what I did.<br>And bad laws exist because some politician had a knee jerk reaction to some event and got it pushed threw into law. And once a law exists it is nearly impossible to get it removed.  They usually have to pass another law to kill the bad law but that gets bogged down in legislation.  People aren't helpless and unless a large number of people organize it is very difficult to get a law removed or changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only partially .
Ideally the judge is there just to make sure the court works according to the law so his personal feelings should never come into it .
Never happens that way but that is the theory .
I know that the last time I was in court , I pissed off the judge and landed behind bars for a few days .
Not even sure what I did.And bad laws exist because some politician had a knee jerk reaction to some event and got it pushed threw into law .
And once a law exists it is nearly impossible to get it removed .
They usually have to pass another law to kill the bad law but that gets bogged down in legislation .
People are n't helpless and unless a large number of people organize it is very difficult to get a law removed or changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only partially.
Ideally the judge is there just to make sure the court works according to the law so his personal feelings should never come into it.
Never happens that way but that is the theory.
I know that the last time I was in court, I pissed off the judge and landed behind bars for a few days.
Not even sure what I did.And bad laws exist because some politician had a knee jerk reaction to some event and got it pushed threw into law.
And once a law exists it is nearly impossible to get it removed.
They usually have to pass another law to kill the bad law but that gets bogged down in legislation.
People aren't helpless and unless a large number of people organize it is very difficult to get a law removed or changed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28550115</id>
	<title>Re:Any good news lately?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246444200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We lost a long time ago, its just that the fat lady hasn't sung yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We lost a long time ago , its just that the fat lady has n't sung yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We lost a long time ago, its just that the fat lady hasn't sung yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542983</id>
	<title>Digital Changed The Game</title>
	<author>Slashdot Parent</author>
	<datestamp>1246465920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The music industry and RIAA seemed to live through that era. If one friend bought an album, all his friends would get a cassette copy if they wanted it.</p></div><p>But what happened if the friend tried to make a copy for his friend, and that other friend tried to make a copy for his other friend.  Surely you remember that, don't you?  The quality stank so badly nobody wanted to listen to that copy, thanks to lossy analog dubbing.</p><p>With digital media, each copy is lossless, so if a friend copies a song for a friend, who copies it for another friend... even 10, 20, 1000 friends down the chain, and the music still has its original quality.</p><p>So I don't think your Dodge Dart comparison is particularly apt here.  The game has changed.</p><p>Now mow your fucking lawn, pops.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The music industry and RIAA seemed to live through that era .
If one friend bought an album , all his friends would get a cassette copy if they wanted it.But what happened if the friend tried to make a copy for his friend , and that other friend tried to make a copy for his other friend .
Surely you remember that , do n't you ?
The quality stank so badly nobody wanted to listen to that copy , thanks to lossy analog dubbing.With digital media , each copy is lossless , so if a friend copies a song for a friend , who copies it for another friend... even 10 , 20 , 1000 friends down the chain , and the music still has its original quality.So I do n't think your Dodge Dart comparison is particularly apt here .
The game has changed.Now mow your fucking lawn , pops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The music industry and RIAA seemed to live through that era.
If one friend bought an album, all his friends would get a cassette copy if they wanted it.But what happened if the friend tried to make a copy for his friend, and that other friend tried to make a copy for his other friend.
Surely you remember that, don't you?
The quality stank so badly nobody wanted to listen to that copy, thanks to lossy analog dubbing.With digital media, each copy is lossless, so if a friend copies a song for a friend, who copies it for another friend... even 10, 20, 1000 friends down the chain, and the music still has its original quality.So I don't think your Dodge Dart comparison is particularly apt here.
The game has changed.Now mow your fucking lawn, pops.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546967</id>
	<title>The RIAA Really Needs to Die</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1246477740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RIAA really needs to die. They are an annoyance to virtually everyone.<br> <br>
Of course we can see how up to date they are chasing after Usnet. That's so 1999 of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA really needs to die .
They are an annoyance to virtually everyone .
Of course we can see how up to date they are chasing after Usnet .
That 's so 1999 of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA really needs to die.
They are an annoyance to virtually everyone.
Of course we can see how up to date they are chasing after Usnet.
That's so 1999 of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541973</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1246461720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is Usenet with a capital 'U'. Some crap upload and share service that got hold of the domain www.usenet.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Usenet with a capital 'U' .
Some crap upload and share service that got hold of the domain www.usenet.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Usenet with a capital 'U'.
Some crap upload and share service that got hold of the domain www.usenet.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543541</id>
	<title>Re:Any good news lately?</title>
	<author>TitusC3v5</author>
	<datestamp>1246467600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the 'younger' portion of your statement should have been bolded for emphasis. A large part of the problem is that for the most part, all three of our branches of government are filled with 40+ folks, a large portion of which simply don't understand current technologies and how they've changed the game. They understand only the spin that the lobbyists have memorized, and you can imagine where that comes from.<br> <br>

Even if public outrage is evident, I think we're going to see any significant and positive changes until today's 20-30 generation are the ones in office and sitting on the judicial bench.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the 'younger ' portion of your statement should have been bolded for emphasis .
A large part of the problem is that for the most part , all three of our branches of government are filled with 40 + folks , a large portion of which simply do n't understand current technologies and how they 've changed the game .
They understand only the spin that the lobbyists have memorized , and you can imagine where that comes from .
Even if public outrage is evident , I think we 're going to see any significant and positive changes until today 's 20-30 generation are the ones in office and sitting on the judicial bench .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the 'younger' portion of your statement should have been bolded for emphasis.
A large part of the problem is that for the most part, all three of our branches of government are filled with 40+ folks, a large portion of which simply don't understand current technologies and how they've changed the game.
They understand only the spin that the lobbyists have memorized, and you can imagine where that comes from.
Even if public outrage is evident, I think we're going to see any significant and positive changes until today's 20-30 generation are the ones in office and sitting on the judicial bench.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543631</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>Scraps232</author>
	<datestamp>1246467780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference is the accessibility and speed of copying that high-speed internet provided to this concept.  Technically speaking you weren't supposed to copy those cassette tapes but since you did it on such a small scale it didn't affect the record companies.  The few hundred tapes you made doesn't compare to the thousands of songs anyone can download and reshare automatically in a few hours.  It's the pure volume of file sharing that got them them concerned in the first place.

I'd like to see the business models for major labels getting back to the roots of the business - helping artists and fans find each other.  New, cheap self-promotion services hopefully will damage their current business model enough that they will give up the costly, draconian, McCarthyesque witch hunt that the RIAA has been on for years now.

Full Disclosure:  I'm 29 and I loved making mix tapes for others.

-Scraps</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is the accessibility and speed of copying that high-speed internet provided to this concept .
Technically speaking you were n't supposed to copy those cassette tapes but since you did it on such a small scale it did n't affect the record companies .
The few hundred tapes you made does n't compare to the thousands of songs anyone can download and reshare automatically in a few hours .
It 's the pure volume of file sharing that got them them concerned in the first place .
I 'd like to see the business models for major labels getting back to the roots of the business - helping artists and fans find each other .
New , cheap self-promotion services hopefully will damage their current business model enough that they will give up the costly , draconian , McCarthyesque witch hunt that the RIAA has been on for years now .
Full Disclosure : I 'm 29 and I loved making mix tapes for others .
-Scraps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is the accessibility and speed of copying that high-speed internet provided to this concept.
Technically speaking you weren't supposed to copy those cassette tapes but since you did it on such a small scale it didn't affect the record companies.
The few hundred tapes you made doesn't compare to the thousands of songs anyone can download and reshare automatically in a few hours.
It's the pure volume of file sharing that got them them concerned in the first place.
I'd like to see the business models for major labels getting back to the roots of the business - helping artists and fans find each other.
New, cheap self-promotion services hopefully will damage their current business model enough that they will give up the costly, draconian, McCarthyesque witch hunt that the RIAA has been on for years now.
Full Disclosure:  I'm 29 and I loved making mix tapes for others.
-Scraps</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543943</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1246468740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>comp.sys.appleii is still the best forum for 8 bit apple computers. I'd be awfully upset if USENET went away, and not because I need the binaries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>comp.sys.appleii is still the best forum for 8 bit apple computers .
I 'd be awfully upset if USENET went away , and not because I need the binaries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>comp.sys.appleii is still the best forum for 8 bit apple computers.
I'd be awfully upset if USENET went away, and not because I need the binaries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28552321</id>
	<title>Re:a new age in file-sharing is born</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246455240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>try http://mxchg.com/</p><p>it even undoubles your music files and lets you play them. the downside is you need to dedicate an old box with a large harddrive to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>try http : //mxchg.com/it even undoubles your music files and lets you play them .
the downside is you need to dedicate an old box with a large harddrive to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>try http://mxchg.com/it even undoubles your music files and lets you play them.
the downside is you need to dedicate an old box with a large harddrive to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542693</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>cil1mia</author>
	<datestamp>1246464660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here! Here! Also living through the 70's, 80's AND 90's when this was all the norm! Even recording TV shows on your VCR to loan to a friend who missed that episode of Dallas! HAHAHAHA!<br> <br>

The only reason I can figure is mainly because most of the "mainstream" music that has been coming out sucks horribly! So the recording industry had to figure out a way to make up for lost revenue seeing they couldn't figure out a better business model or find/make better bands!<br> <br>

Lets not forget the whining of Lars Ulrich <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6udST6lbE" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6udST6lbE</a> [youtube.com] that really started all this mess! And now he see's his mistake and downloads his own music off the internet! <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars\_Ulrich" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars\_Ulrich</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>

You also never really hear of the actual BANDS out there complaining about file sharing. They know the truth that the more people that get a taste, the more they will actually go out and buy the whole album/cd/what ever, the more people that will come out to see them live! I can't tell you how many albums I bought when I was younger after hearing a song on a "mix tape" at a party or something!<br> <br>

Which brings me to another thought. What the hell ever happened to making music for the pure joy of it? Oh that's right, greed!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here !
Here ! Also living through the 70 's , 80 's AND 90 's when this was all the norm !
Even recording TV shows on your VCR to loan to a friend who missed that episode of Dallas !
HAHAHAHA ! The only reason I can figure is mainly because most of the " mainstream " music that has been coming out sucks horribly !
So the recording industry had to figure out a way to make up for lost revenue seeing they could n't figure out a better business model or find/make better bands !
Lets not forget the whining of Lars Ulrich http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = fS6udST6lbE [ youtube.com ] that really started all this mess !
And now he see 's his mistake and downloads his own music off the internet !
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars \ _Ulrich [ wikipedia.org ] You also never really hear of the actual BANDS out there complaining about file sharing .
They know the truth that the more people that get a taste , the more they will actually go out and buy the whole album/cd/what ever , the more people that will come out to see them live !
I ca n't tell you how many albums I bought when I was younger after hearing a song on a " mix tape " at a party or something !
Which brings me to another thought .
What the hell ever happened to making music for the pure joy of it ?
Oh that 's right , greed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here!
Here! Also living through the 70's, 80's AND 90's when this was all the norm!
Even recording TV shows on your VCR to loan to a friend who missed that episode of Dallas!
HAHAHAHA! 

The only reason I can figure is mainly because most of the "mainstream" music that has been coming out sucks horribly!
So the recording industry had to figure out a way to make up for lost revenue seeing they couldn't figure out a better business model or find/make better bands!
Lets not forget the whining of Lars Ulrich http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6udST6lbE [youtube.com] that really started all this mess!
And now he see's his mistake and downloads his own music off the internet!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars\_Ulrich [wikipedia.org]  

You also never really hear of the actual BANDS out there complaining about file sharing.
They know the truth that the more people that get a taste, the more they will actually go out and buy the whole album/cd/what ever, the more people that will come out to see them live!
I can't tell you how many albums I bought when I was younger after hearing a song on a "mix tape" at a party or something!
Which brings me to another thought.
What the hell ever happened to making music for the pure joy of it?
Oh that's right, greed!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28627083</id>
	<title>The Big Picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247084880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The concern should be that our rights are slowly but surely being taken away! Sure, copyright infringement is a law breaker in some states oral sex is a crime too! Seriously, what's next on the list?</p><p>This will be appealed and overturned</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The concern should be that our rights are slowly but surely being taken away !
Sure , copyright infringement is a law breaker in some states oral sex is a crime too !
Seriously , what 's next on the list ? This will be appealed and overturned</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concern should be that our rights are slowly but surely being taken away!
Sure, copyright infringement is a law breaker in some states oral sex is a crime too!
Seriously, what's next on the list?This will be appealed and overturned</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28550175</id>
	<title>Re:If you ever go to court...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246444440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have other things to do with my life than obeying and trying to fix bad laws.  Don't lay the blame on me, bad laws exist because people enforce them.  Direct your ire at those who actively promote bad laws, not those who are just trying to live their lives.</p></div><p>There's more to Civil Disobedience than just breaking unjust laws, there's also publicly accepting the punishment for it while decrying how the laws are unjust.  So unless you publicly notified the authorities of your infringement, the reasons for it, and are either waiting for or are currently on trial for breaking the DMCA or being sued by the RIAA while publicly speaking out about it; your actions are not Civil Disobedience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have other things to do with my life than obeying and trying to fix bad laws .
Do n't lay the blame on me , bad laws exist because people enforce them .
Direct your ire at those who actively promote bad laws , not those who are just trying to live their lives.There 's more to Civil Disobedience than just breaking unjust laws , there 's also publicly accepting the punishment for it while decrying how the laws are unjust .
So unless you publicly notified the authorities of your infringement , the reasons for it , and are either waiting for or are currently on trial for breaking the DMCA or being sued by the RIAA while publicly speaking out about it ; your actions are not Civil Disobedience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have other things to do with my life than obeying and trying to fix bad laws.
Don't lay the blame on me, bad laws exist because people enforce them.
Direct your ire at those who actively promote bad laws, not those who are just trying to live their lives.There's more to Civil Disobedience than just breaking unjust laws, there's also publicly accepting the punishment for it while decrying how the laws are unjust.
So unless you publicly notified the authorities of your infringement, the reasons for it, and are either waiting for or are currently on trial for breaking the DMCA or being sued by the RIAA while publicly speaking out about it; your actions are not Civil Disobedience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542607</id>
	<title>usenet.com's own fault</title>
	<author>seekret</author>
	<datestamp>1246464360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They shouldn't have been advertising the availability of illegal material, they dug there own grave by literally saying "come here to download any copyright material you want and we will help you get away with it". Usenet is useful for many things that are perfectly legal, I feel no remorse for usenet.com because their own arrogance brought this on them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should n't have been advertising the availability of illegal material , they dug there own grave by literally saying " come here to download any copyright material you want and we will help you get away with it " .
Usenet is useful for many things that are perfectly legal , I feel no remorse for usenet.com because their own arrogance brought this on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They shouldn't have been advertising the availability of illegal material, they dug there own grave by literally saying "come here to download any copyright material you want and we will help you get away with it".
Usenet is useful for many things that are perfectly legal, I feel no remorse for usenet.com because their own arrogance brought this on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543055</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>Soubrause</author>
	<datestamp>1246466160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were a lot more albums worth buying back then.  10 out of 12 songs would be worth owning now you get 2, no wonder we only want to trade 1 song at a time we'd be wearing out the tapes fast forwarding through all the crap.  The RIAA dropped their standards for what they distribute and blame us for not dropping our standards in what we pay for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were a lot more albums worth buying back then .
10 out of 12 songs would be worth owning now you get 2 , no wonder we only want to trade 1 song at a time we 'd be wearing out the tapes fast forwarding through all the crap .
The RIAA dropped their standards for what they distribute and blame us for not dropping our standards in what we pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were a lot more albums worth buying back then.
10 out of 12 songs would be worth owning now you get 2, no wonder we only want to trade 1 song at a time we'd be wearing out the tapes fast forwarding through all the crap.
The RIAA dropped their standards for what they distribute and blame us for not dropping our standards in what we pay for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546227</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1246475400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lars' original point, before the MPAA adopted him as a spokesman, was that he was Ok with Napster distributing his music as long as they asked first. What he objected to is that nobody even asked, "hey are you ok with this?" in the first place. Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me, if ignorant of the non-centralized organization of Napster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lars ' original point , before the MPAA adopted him as a spokesman , was that he was Ok with Napster distributing his music as long as they asked first .
What he objected to is that nobody even asked , " hey are you ok with this ?
" in the first place .
Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me , if ignorant of the non-centralized organization of Napster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lars' original point, before the MPAA adopted him as a spokesman, was that he was Ok with Napster distributing his music as long as they asked first.
What he objected to is that nobody even asked, "hey are you ok with this?
" in the first place.
Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me, if ignorant of the non-centralized organization of Napster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542593</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1246464300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the pirate bay is outlawed (or sold), only outlaws will have usenet servers tunneled between each other with trust models based on invite only<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the pirate bay is outlawed ( or sold ) , only outlaws will have usenet servers tunneled between each other with trust models based on invite only ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the pirate bay is outlawed (or sold), only outlaws will have usenet servers tunneled between each other with trust models based on invite only ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545795</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1246474200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides the loss of quality with each successive copy mentioned in another comment, there was a cost associated with each copy. You or your friend had to spring for the cost of a cassette. That small cost kept copying down. But, with digital media, there is no cost for successive copy, nor is there any quality lost.</p><p>Before you had to pay for the cassette and the copy (copy 1)was of lesser quality than the original. Make copy 2 from copy 1, and copy 2 was of even lower quality. The quality quickly became less than the value of the blank tape. With digital media, copy 147494782652 will be the same quality as copy 1 and there is no media cost.</p><blockquote><div><p>The music industry and RIAA seemed to live through that era. If one friend bought an album, all his friends would get a cassette copy if they wanted it.</p></div></blockquote><p> That may be how it was back in the day, there was, again, a limit on the number of copies produced due to costs, quality loss, and the number of friends who would make copies. Now, there is no limit due to costs or quality loss, and the people being offered and receiving copies is no longer limited to a relatively small group of friends, but rather to effectively everyone one the internet.</p><p>It has gone from one person offering to make low quality copies for ten or twenty friends with a cost for the cassettes the copies are made on to one person offering 200,000,000 people he may or may not know extremely high quality copies with no copying costs to those making the illegal copies.</p><p>It is much easier to live with the former than the latter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides the loss of quality with each successive copy mentioned in another comment , there was a cost associated with each copy .
You or your friend had to spring for the cost of a cassette .
That small cost kept copying down .
But , with digital media , there is no cost for successive copy , nor is there any quality lost.Before you had to pay for the cassette and the copy ( copy 1 ) was of lesser quality than the original .
Make copy 2 from copy 1 , and copy 2 was of even lower quality .
The quality quickly became less than the value of the blank tape .
With digital media , copy 147494782652 will be the same quality as copy 1 and there is no media cost.The music industry and RIAA seemed to live through that era .
If one friend bought an album , all his friends would get a cassette copy if they wanted it .
That may be how it was back in the day , there was , again , a limit on the number of copies produced due to costs , quality loss , and the number of friends who would make copies .
Now , there is no limit due to costs or quality loss , and the people being offered and receiving copies is no longer limited to a relatively small group of friends , but rather to effectively everyone one the internet.It has gone from one person offering to make low quality copies for ten or twenty friends with a cost for the cassettes the copies are made on to one person offering 200,000,000 people he may or may not know extremely high quality copies with no copying costs to those making the illegal copies.It is much easier to live with the former than the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides the loss of quality with each successive copy mentioned in another comment, there was a cost associated with each copy.
You or your friend had to spring for the cost of a cassette.
That small cost kept copying down.
But, with digital media, there is no cost for successive copy, nor is there any quality lost.Before you had to pay for the cassette and the copy (copy 1)was of lesser quality than the original.
Make copy 2 from copy 1, and copy 2 was of even lower quality.
The quality quickly became less than the value of the blank tape.
With digital media, copy 147494782652 will be the same quality as copy 1 and there is no media cost.The music industry and RIAA seemed to live through that era.
If one friend bought an album, all his friends would get a cassette copy if they wanted it.
That may be how it was back in the day, there was, again, a limit on the number of copies produced due to costs, quality loss, and the number of friends who would make copies.
Now, there is no limit due to costs or quality loss, and the people being offered and receiving copies is no longer limited to a relatively small group of friends, but rather to effectively everyone one the internet.It has gone from one person offering to make low quality copies for ten or twenty friends with a cost for the cassettes the copies are made on to one person offering 200,000,000 people he may or may not know extremely high quality copies with no copying costs to those making the illegal copies.It is much easier to live with the former than the latter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28554135</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1246473000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>It's your reading comprehension that is problematic. There's a list of things that the poster thinks infringe copyright. Lending and giving away books is in this list. The next item raises the question of doing the same with e-books in the future. That doesn't change the status of lending books as an item in a list of infringing activities.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's your reading comprehension that is problematic .
There 's a list of things that the poster thinks infringe copyright .
Lending and giving away books is in this list .
The next item raises the question of doing the same with e-books in the future .
That does n't change the status of lending books as an item in a list of infringing activities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's your reading comprehension that is problematic.
There's a list of things that the poster thinks infringe copyright.
Lending and giving away books is in this list.
The next item raises the question of doing the same with e-books in the future.
That doesn't change the status of lending books as an item in a list of infringing activities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542043</id>
	<title>Re:Any good news lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246461960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess what? the law applies to you and even with clever lawyering you cannot get away from that fact.</p><p>Why do people like you think you SHOULD be able to download music and movies with impunity. Oh, something about information wants to be free or the unfairness of the Intellectual Property laws...yah, good luck with that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess what ?
the law applies to you and even with clever lawyering you can not get away from that fact.Why do people like you think you SHOULD be able to download music and movies with impunity .
Oh , something about information wants to be free or the unfairness of the Intellectual Property laws...yah , good luck with that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess what?
the law applies to you and even with clever lawyering you cannot get away from that fact.Why do people like you think you SHOULD be able to download music and movies with impunity.
Oh, something about information wants to be free or the unfairness of the Intellectual Property laws...yah, good luck with that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545785</id>
	<title>Re:Digital Changed The Game</title>
	<author>zepo1a</author>
	<datestamp>1246474200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you're mixing your oranges with my apples.</p><p>I'm talking about sharing and you're talking about quality.</p><p>Maybe you haven't noticed, but iPods and other MP3 players with ear buds are not hi fidelity devices.</p><p>I doubt *most* file sharers listening to the latest Pop/Rock/Rap tripe know the difference between a 96kbs rip, a 256kbs rip or a VBRate rip.</p><p>And do you think most kids using whatever it is they use these days to *share* music really know how many hundreds or hundreds of thousands of people may be involved or even know that they are sharing at all?</p><p>And yes, I had the crap quality tape or 2 in my day, But I'd rather listen to a tape hissing Zeppelin II than not listen to it at all at the time, again, back in the day I was not an audiophile, I was a dumb kid with a Dodge Dart with factory in the door speakers and a $40 after market cassette player.</p><p>I'll mow my lawn when you get off it, sonny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you 're mixing your oranges with my apples.I 'm talking about sharing and you 're talking about quality.Maybe you have n't noticed , but iPods and other MP3 players with ear buds are not hi fidelity devices.I doubt * most * file sharers listening to the latest Pop/Rock/Rap tripe know the difference between a 96kbs rip , a 256kbs rip or a VBRate rip.And do you think most kids using whatever it is they use these days to * share * music really know how many hundreds or hundreds of thousands of people may be involved or even know that they are sharing at all ? And yes , I had the crap quality tape or 2 in my day , But I 'd rather listen to a tape hissing Zeppelin II than not listen to it at all at the time , again , back in the day I was not an audiophile , I was a dumb kid with a Dodge Dart with factory in the door speakers and a $ 40 after market cassette player.I 'll mow my lawn when you get off it , sonny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you're mixing your oranges with my apples.I'm talking about sharing and you're talking about quality.Maybe you haven't noticed, but iPods and other MP3 players with ear buds are not hi fidelity devices.I doubt *most* file sharers listening to the latest Pop/Rock/Rap tripe know the difference between a 96kbs rip, a 256kbs rip or a VBRate rip.And do you think most kids using whatever it is they use these days to *share* music really know how many hundreds or hundreds of thousands of people may be involved or even know that they are sharing at all?And yes, I had the crap quality tape or 2 in my day, But I'd rather listen to a tape hissing Zeppelin II than not listen to it at all at the time, again, back in the day I was not an audiophile, I was a dumb kid with a Dodge Dart with factory in the door speakers and a $40 after market cassette player.I'll mow my lawn when you get off it, sonny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545317</id>
	<title>Re:Digital Changed The Game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA has spoken softly, better do what he says.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA has spoken softly , better do what he says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA has spoken softly, better do what he says.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28552619</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246457700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is Usenet with a capital 'U'. Some crap upload and share service that got hold of the domain www.usenet.com</p></div><p>You're probably right about it being crap and all, but the capitalized 'U' is not distinctive. Usenet, as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun#Proper\_nouns\_and\_common\_nouns" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">proper name</a> [wikipedia.org] of a network, is capitalized, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Usenet with a capital 'U' .
Some crap upload and share service that got hold of the domain www.usenet.comYou 're probably right about it being crap and all , but the capitalized 'U ' is not distinctive .
Usenet , as a proper name [ wikipedia.org ] of a network , is capitalized , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Usenet with a capital 'U'.
Some crap upload and share service that got hold of the domain www.usenet.comYou're probably right about it being crap and all, but the capitalized 'U' is not distinctive.
Usenet, as a proper name [wikipedia.org] of a network, is capitalized, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544117</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246469160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You also never really hear of the actual BANDS out there complaining about file sharing.</p></div><p>Either because they know it's stupid to, or because they can't. Most label artists don't own the rights to their music, the label owns the rights. They couldn't complain if they wanted to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You also never really hear of the actual BANDS out there complaining about file sharing.Either because they know it 's stupid to , or because they ca n't .
Most label artists do n't own the rights to their music , the label owns the rights .
They could n't complain if they wanted to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also never really hear of the actual BANDS out there complaining about file sharing.Either because they know it's stupid to, or because they can't.
Most label artists don't own the rights to their music, the label owns the rights.
They couldn't complain if they wanted to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543563</id>
	<title>Re:Any good news lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And we will until enough people get upset at the abuses and stand up.</p></div><p>Judging by the constant abuses Microsoft imposes on its users, it's going to take a <b>long time</b> before that happens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And we will until enough people get upset at the abuses and stand up.Judging by the constant abuses Microsoft imposes on its users , it 's going to take a long time before that happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we will until enough people get upset at the abuses and stand up.Judging by the constant abuses Microsoft imposes on its users, it's going to take a long time before that happens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28547031</id>
	<title>They were warned...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246477920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They had illegally copied files on their servers, they didn't even own the originals (so backup excuse is out) and they charged for the service and did not pay any royalties even to independent artists and developers. So too bad for them, but if I'm selling my cool program for a miserable 5 bucks I expect that at least people ask me before starting selling it.<br>There is no TPB all over again here, they were plain criminals.</p><p>Nothing to see here, walk along people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They had illegally copied files on their servers , they did n't even own the originals ( so backup excuse is out ) and they charged for the service and did not pay any royalties even to independent artists and developers .
So too bad for them , but if I 'm selling my cool program for a miserable 5 bucks I expect that at least people ask me before starting selling it.There is no TPB all over again here , they were plain criminals.Nothing to see here , walk along people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had illegally copied files on their servers, they didn't even own the originals (so backup excuse is out) and they charged for the service and did not pay any royalties even to independent artists and developers.
So too bad for them, but if I'm selling my cool program for a miserable 5 bucks I expect that at least people ask me before starting selling it.There is no TPB all over again here, they were plain criminals.Nothing to see here, walk along people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28549509</id>
	<title>Re:a new age in file-sharing is born</title>
	<author>z-j-y</author>
	<datestamp>1246442280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how do you transfer a flash drive on facebook?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how do you transfer a flash drive on facebook ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how do you transfer a flash drive on facebook?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542071</id>
	<title>Not a seminal case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246462080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is merely a district court case where Usenet got hammered for discovery abuses.<br>This case does not set any copyright law precedent.<br>Mainly this case stands for the following proposition:<br>Play by the rules or the judge will get pissed off and then you're fucked.</p><p>The sky is not falling.<br>For a recent case with bigger precedential implications for copyright law, and which goes <b>against</b> the MPAA/Copyright Alliance, see the Cablevision case:<br><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/technology/30cable.html?\_r=1&amp;partner=rss&amp;emc=rss" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/technology/30cable.html?\_r=1&amp;partner=rss&amp;emc=rss</a> [nytimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is merely a district court case where Usenet got hammered for discovery abuses.This case does not set any copyright law precedent.Mainly this case stands for the following proposition : Play by the rules or the judge will get pissed off and then you 're fucked.The sky is not falling.For a recent case with bigger precedential implications for copyright law , and which goes against the MPAA/Copyright Alliance , see the Cablevision case : http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/technology/30cable.html ? \ _r = 1&amp;partner = rss&amp;emc = rss [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is merely a district court case where Usenet got hammered for discovery abuses.This case does not set any copyright law precedent.Mainly this case stands for the following proposition:Play by the rules or the judge will get pissed off and then you're fucked.The sky is not falling.For a recent case with bigger precedential implications for copyright law, and which goes against the MPAA/Copyright Alliance, see the Cablevision case:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/technology/30cable.html?\_r=1&amp;partner=rss&amp;emc=rss [nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545073</id>
	<title>Re:If you ever go to court...</title>
	<author>tiananmen tank man</author>
	<datestamp>1246471980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the info about judges but should you be telling us how to change it instead of how to behave in front of a judge? Do you really want a judge to say someone is guilty because the accused isnt in a suit or doesnt know court procedures. Shouldn't the accused be found guilty based on evidence, not the "cover of the book"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the info about judges but should you be telling us how to change it instead of how to behave in front of a judge ?
Do you really want a judge to say someone is guilty because the accused isnt in a suit or doesnt know court procedures .
Should n't the accused be found guilty based on evidence , not the " cover of the book "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the info about judges but should you be telling us how to change it instead of how to behave in front of a judge?
Do you really want a judge to say someone is guilty because the accused isnt in a suit or doesnt know court procedures.
Shouldn't the accused be found guilty based on evidence, not the "cover of the book"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544941</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1246471680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha! Finally nailed you, you sorry sack. Years and years of waiting, but you finally confessed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha !
Finally nailed you , you sorry sack .
Years and years of waiting , but you finally confessed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha!
Finally nailed you, you sorry sack.
Years and years of waiting, but you finally confessed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544463</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>jackchance</author>
	<datestamp>1246470180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Back in my day (I'm 48)....</p><p>When I was a young whipper snapper in the 70's-80's. I'd buy an album and copy it to tape for my car. If asked by a friend for a copy, I'd take a blank cassette tape and make a copy in my cassette recorder with the high speed dub feature.</p><p>I don't ever recall the cops ever asking me if I got pulled over for speeding or something..."BTW son, Do you have a license for all those home recorded cassette tapes back there."</p></div><p>Really?  You can't tell the difference between sharing amongst a group of friends (or even friends of friends) and one person buying it , posting it online for thousand or hundreds of thousands of people to access? </p><p>I'm don't think that the RIAA is handling things in the right way.  They are a bunch of scumbags.  The answer to this is to make media cheap and easy enough to access legally, that most people wouldn't bother stealing.  But, the internet has fundamentally changed access to media in a way that makes the "making tape copies" precedent irrelevant.  </p><p>I think the personal information example makes a clear point.  In the old days anyone could have, with great effort, gotten hold of a white pages for any city and tried to find someone's address and phone info. Or for a few hundred dollars hired a PI to get info.</p><p>Now, you can get address, phone or even reverse phone info instantly and for $5 you can find out everything about a person without leaving home.  I think that's a qualitative different, not just a quantitive difference. But legal theory has a hard time with that concept.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in my day ( I 'm 48 ) ....When I was a young whipper snapper in the 70 's-80 's .
I 'd buy an album and copy it to tape for my car .
If asked by a friend for a copy , I 'd take a blank cassette tape and make a copy in my cassette recorder with the high speed dub feature.I do n't ever recall the cops ever asking me if I got pulled over for speeding or something... " BTW son , Do you have a license for all those home recorded cassette tapes back there. " Really ?
You ca n't tell the difference between sharing amongst a group of friends ( or even friends of friends ) and one person buying it , posting it online for thousand or hundreds of thousands of people to access ?
I 'm do n't think that the RIAA is handling things in the right way .
They are a bunch of scumbags .
The answer to this is to make media cheap and easy enough to access legally , that most people would n't bother stealing .
But , the internet has fundamentally changed access to media in a way that makes the " making tape copies " precedent irrelevant .
I think the personal information example makes a clear point .
In the old days anyone could have , with great effort , gotten hold of a white pages for any city and tried to find someone 's address and phone info .
Or for a few hundred dollars hired a PI to get info.Now , you can get address , phone or even reverse phone info instantly and for $ 5 you can find out everything about a person without leaving home .
I think that 's a qualitative different , not just a quantitive difference .
But legal theory has a hard time with that concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in my day (I'm 48)....When I was a young whipper snapper in the 70's-80's.
I'd buy an album and copy it to tape for my car.
If asked by a friend for a copy, I'd take a blank cassette tape and make a copy in my cassette recorder with the high speed dub feature.I don't ever recall the cops ever asking me if I got pulled over for speeding or something..."BTW son, Do you have a license for all those home recorded cassette tapes back there."Really?
You can't tell the difference between sharing amongst a group of friends (or even friends of friends) and one person buying it , posting it online for thousand or hundreds of thousands of people to access?
I'm don't think that the RIAA is handling things in the right way.
They are a bunch of scumbags.
The answer to this is to make media cheap and easy enough to access legally, that most people wouldn't bother stealing.
But, the internet has fundamentally changed access to media in a way that makes the "making tape copies" precedent irrelevant.
I think the personal information example makes a clear point.
In the old days anyone could have, with great effort, gotten hold of a white pages for any city and tried to find someone's address and phone info.
Or for a few hundred dollars hired a PI to get info.Now, you can get address, phone or even reverse phone info instantly and for $5 you can find out everything about a person without leaving home.
I think that's a qualitative different, not just a quantitive difference.
But legal theory has a hard time with that concept.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543669</id>
	<title>Well from what i can understand...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one gets usenet versus Usenet.com (nor I really). But it certainly has some interesting implications, for example, almost every ISP in Australia has a usenet feed and a full alt.binaries tree. That could make for some "fun times" and i cant only imagine what will happen if the RIAA equivalent in AU gets to mess with our little comunist firewall... err, i mean saviour of our childrens minds.</p><p>Given there are already cases against the ISP's in court already.</p><p>But, does it really matter? Yeah, usenet was good while it lasted and if this is about to spell it's final "for whom the bell tolls", then so be it. One of the big problems with usenet in the modern era was lack of knowledge of its existence. For example, in my day I sold and bought things on Aus.ads.forsale and now everyone uses ebay cause they know it exists.</p><p>But, some of that "social fabric" is changing as well (to more modern things I mean). Take twitter and facebook as a semi-evolutionary step, sure you probably cant easily share copywritten (?) work on them easily, but how long until the google wave becomes a simple, all-access protocol capable of doing the same?</p><p>The internet does route around the damage that people do to it, and techo's come up with better tech for avoiding rediculous litigation - but more importantly, they get better at quickly making things that are hard to blame on any one person or organisation while people like the RIAA are struggling to grapple with putting together a case based on incomplete evidence from yesterdays protocols.</p><p>Block Bittorrent in AU? go for it, we'll get something else (we had kazaa, napster, emule, etc etc already and we learnt from the various mistakes present in those protocols). In short, techno-people move quick, bit corp's move slow and we're always going to be ahead.</p><p>Personally when it comes to all these things all I know is that it puts me off watching movies or listening to music because if I happen to have an MP3 of a song from a CD that was later stolen, chances are I could be possibly in trouble. In alot of industries thats called shooting yourself in the foot.</p><p>Oh, and did anyone see that little news report in AU about how movie piracy was funding terrorism? I wonder how much the RIAA payed to have that little piece put on the air (in all fairness, it was physical media piracy as opposed to sharing on the internet, but still)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one gets usenet versus Usenet.com ( nor I really ) .
But it certainly has some interesting implications , for example , almost every ISP in Australia has a usenet feed and a full alt.binaries tree .
That could make for some " fun times " and i cant only imagine what will happen if the RIAA equivalent in AU gets to mess with our little comunist firewall... err , i mean saviour of our childrens minds.Given there are already cases against the ISP 's in court already.But , does it really matter ?
Yeah , usenet was good while it lasted and if this is about to spell it 's final " for whom the bell tolls " , then so be it .
One of the big problems with usenet in the modern era was lack of knowledge of its existence .
For example , in my day I sold and bought things on Aus.ads.forsale and now everyone uses ebay cause they know it exists.But , some of that " social fabric " is changing as well ( to more modern things I mean ) .
Take twitter and facebook as a semi-evolutionary step , sure you probably cant easily share copywritten ( ?
) work on them easily , but how long until the google wave becomes a simple , all-access protocol capable of doing the same ? The internet does route around the damage that people do to it , and techo 's come up with better tech for avoiding rediculous litigation - but more importantly , they get better at quickly making things that are hard to blame on any one person or organisation while people like the RIAA are struggling to grapple with putting together a case based on incomplete evidence from yesterdays protocols.Block Bittorrent in AU ?
go for it , we 'll get something else ( we had kazaa , napster , emule , etc etc already and we learnt from the various mistakes present in those protocols ) .
In short , techno-people move quick , bit corp 's move slow and we 're always going to be ahead.Personally when it comes to all these things all I know is that it puts me off watching movies or listening to music because if I happen to have an MP3 of a song from a CD that was later stolen , chances are I could be possibly in trouble .
In alot of industries thats called shooting yourself in the foot.Oh , and did anyone see that little news report in AU about how movie piracy was funding terrorism ?
I wonder how much the RIAA payed to have that little piece put on the air ( in all fairness , it was physical media piracy as opposed to sharing on the internet , but still ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one gets usenet versus Usenet.com (nor I really).
But it certainly has some interesting implications, for example, almost every ISP in Australia has a usenet feed and a full alt.binaries tree.
That could make for some "fun times" and i cant only imagine what will happen if the RIAA equivalent in AU gets to mess with our little comunist firewall... err, i mean saviour of our childrens minds.Given there are already cases against the ISP's in court already.But, does it really matter?
Yeah, usenet was good while it lasted and if this is about to spell it's final "for whom the bell tolls", then so be it.
One of the big problems with usenet in the modern era was lack of knowledge of its existence.
For example, in my day I sold and bought things on Aus.ads.forsale and now everyone uses ebay cause they know it exists.But, some of that "social fabric" is changing as well (to more modern things I mean).
Take twitter and facebook as a semi-evolutionary step, sure you probably cant easily share copywritten (?
) work on them easily, but how long until the google wave becomes a simple, all-access protocol capable of doing the same?The internet does route around the damage that people do to it, and techo's come up with better tech for avoiding rediculous litigation - but more importantly, they get better at quickly making things that are hard to blame on any one person or organisation while people like the RIAA are struggling to grapple with putting together a case based on incomplete evidence from yesterdays protocols.Block Bittorrent in AU?
go for it, we'll get something else (we had kazaa, napster, emule, etc etc already and we learnt from the various mistakes present in those protocols).
In short, techno-people move quick, bit corp's move slow and we're always going to be ahead.Personally when it comes to all these things all I know is that it puts me off watching movies or listening to music because if I happen to have an MP3 of a song from a CD that was later stolen, chances are I could be possibly in trouble.
In alot of industries thats called shooting yourself in the foot.Oh, and did anyone see that little news report in AU about how movie piracy was funding terrorism?
I wonder how much the RIAA payed to have that little piece put on the air (in all fairness, it was physical media piracy as opposed to sharing on the internet, but still)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544931</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246471620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>You also never really hear of the actual BANDS out there complaining about file sharing.</i> <br> <br>
Ever heard of Metallica?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You also never really hear of the actual BANDS out there complaining about file sharing .
Ever heard of Metallica ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also never really hear of the actual BANDS out there complaining about file sharing.
Ever heard of Metallica?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863</id>
	<title>In other news . . .</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1246461240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Usenet is still being used? I didn't think anybody posted there anymore. Oh wait, that's right -- it's only used for sending spam and trading copyrighted files. So, by shutting it down, they can claim to be fighting internet piracy under the guise of fighting spam. Sounds like a win-win for them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Usenet is still being used ?
I did n't think anybody posted there anymore .
Oh wait , that 's right -- it 's only used for sending spam and trading copyrighted files .
So , by shutting it down , they can claim to be fighting internet piracy under the guise of fighting spam .
Sounds like a win-win for them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usenet is still being used?
I didn't think anybody posted there anymore.
Oh wait, that's right -- it's only used for sending spam and trading copyrighted files.
So, by shutting it down, they can claim to be fighting internet piracy under the guise of fighting spam.
Sounds like a win-win for them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542645</id>
	<title>nt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Andnothingofvaluewaslost</htmltext>
<tokenext>Andnothingofvaluewaslost</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Andnothingofvaluewaslost</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241</id>
	<title>Back in my day....</title>
	<author>zepo1a</author>
	<datestamp>1246462740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in my day (I'm 48)....</p><p>When I was a young whipper snapper in the 70's-80's. I'd buy an album and copy it to tape for my car. If asked by a friend for a copy, I'd take a blank cassette tape and make a copy in my cassette recorder with the high speed dub feature.</p><p>I'd also ask friends the same, and they'd make me a tape of an album I didn't have.</p><p>I'd also buy cassette tapes of music at the store.</p><p>Now my 69 Dodge Dart back then is carting around 150-200 cassette tapes, some my own made copies, some a friend made copies for me and other store bought tapes.</p><p>The music industry and RIAA seemed to live through that era. If one friend bought an album, all his friends would get a cassette copy if they wanted it.</p><p>I don't ever recall the cops ever asking me if I got pulled over for speeding or something..."BTW son, Do you have a license for all those home recorded cassette tapes back there."</p><p>Seriously, what are the RIAA trying to prove here. I just can't wrap my head around all this frivolous suing.</p><p>Now get off my lawn, etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in my day ( I 'm 48 ) ....When I was a young whipper snapper in the 70 's-80 's .
I 'd buy an album and copy it to tape for my car .
If asked by a friend for a copy , I 'd take a blank cassette tape and make a copy in my cassette recorder with the high speed dub feature.I 'd also ask friends the same , and they 'd make me a tape of an album I did n't have.I 'd also buy cassette tapes of music at the store.Now my 69 Dodge Dart back then is carting around 150-200 cassette tapes , some my own made copies , some a friend made copies for me and other store bought tapes.The music industry and RIAA seemed to live through that era .
If one friend bought an album , all his friends would get a cassette copy if they wanted it.I do n't ever recall the cops ever asking me if I got pulled over for speeding or something... " BTW son , Do you have a license for all those home recorded cassette tapes back there .
" Seriously , what are the RIAA trying to prove here .
I just ca n't wrap my head around all this frivolous suing.Now get off my lawn , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in my day (I'm 48)....When I was a young whipper snapper in the 70's-80's.
I'd buy an album and copy it to tape for my car.
If asked by a friend for a copy, I'd take a blank cassette tape and make a copy in my cassette recorder with the high speed dub feature.I'd also ask friends the same, and they'd make me a tape of an album I didn't have.I'd also buy cassette tapes of music at the store.Now my 69 Dodge Dart back then is carting around 150-200 cassette tapes, some my own made copies, some a friend made copies for me and other store bought tapes.The music industry and RIAA seemed to live through that era.
If one friend bought an album, all his friends would get a cassette copy if they wanted it.I don't ever recall the cops ever asking me if I got pulled over for speeding or something..."BTW son, Do you have a license for all those home recorded cassette tapes back there.
"Seriously, what are the RIAA trying to prove here.
I just can't wrap my head around all this frivolous suing.Now get off my lawn, etc...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542321</id>
	<title>Re:So can you sue Google for finding my ISO files?</title>
	<author>SolitaryMan</author>
	<datestamp>1246463100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google removes items from index (yes, torrents too) if they point to copyrighted material.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google removes items from index ( yes , torrents too ) if they point to copyrighted material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google removes items from index (yes, torrents too) if they point to copyrighted material.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542703</id>
	<title>Re:Any good news lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>cough up your lunch money dweeb.  Now lick my boots. Who gave you permission to breath worm?</htmltext>
<tokenext>cough up your lunch money dweeb .
Now lick my boots .
Who gave you permission to breath worm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cough up your lunch money dweeb.
Now lick my boots.
Who gave you permission to breath worm?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543503</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1246467480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boycott them. Don't buy tunes from GOONS!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boycott them .
Do n't buy tunes from GOONS !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boycott them.
Don't buy tunes from GOONS!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542159</id>
	<title>Re:Any good news lately?</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1246462380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And we will until enough people get upset at the abuses and stand up.  Until the average person knows that he is caught in the RIAA net too, he won't care, and nothing will change.<br> <br>
This also applies to encroaching state policies.  And yes, they are related.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And we will until enough people get upset at the abuses and stand up .
Until the average person knows that he is caught in the RIAA net too , he wo n't care , and nothing will change .
This also applies to encroaching state policies .
And yes , they are related .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we will until enough people get upset at the abuses and stand up.
Until the average person knows that he is caught in the RIAA net too, he won't care, and nothing will change.
This also applies to encroaching state policies.
And yes, they are related.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545759</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246474080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't about usenet - and it never ceases to amaze me when I hear people claim that usenet is only used for binaries and spam.  I would tell you to go ahead and help make these case for those who want to take away your freedoms - if it didn't remove mine as well.</p><p>Usenet is important, it's used for a lot of things - binaries are just one of them. People send copyrighted files AND spam by email as well, but I don't hear you bitching about email servers and SMTP protocol.</p><p>I believe that this company was a directory index of binaries posted to the internet - similar to newzbin. They were making money off of providing access to these files for people who couldn't take the time to learn how to use a proper newsreader.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about usenet - and it never ceases to amaze me when I hear people claim that usenet is only used for binaries and spam .
I would tell you to go ahead and help make these case for those who want to take away your freedoms - if it did n't remove mine as well.Usenet is important , it 's used for a lot of things - binaries are just one of them .
People send copyrighted files AND spam by email as well , but I do n't hear you bitching about email servers and SMTP protocol.I believe that this company was a directory index of binaries posted to the internet - similar to newzbin .
They were making money off of providing access to these files for people who could n't take the time to learn how to use a proper newsreader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about usenet - and it never ceases to amaze me when I hear people claim that usenet is only used for binaries and spam.
I would tell you to go ahead and help make these case for those who want to take away your freedoms - if it didn't remove mine as well.Usenet is important, it's used for a lot of things - binaries are just one of them.
People send copyrighted files AND spam by email as well, but I don't hear you bitching about email servers and SMTP protocol.I believe that this company was a directory index of binaries posted to the internet - similar to newzbin.
They were making money off of providing access to these files for people who couldn't take the time to learn how to use a proper newsreader.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544293</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>frozentier</author>
	<datestamp>1246469700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, this means if a guy bootlegging movies were to record those movies onto Memorex blank DVD's, then Memorex would be liable for copyright infringement, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , this means if a guy bootlegging movies were to record those movies onto Memorex blank DVD 's , then Memorex would be liable for copyright infringement , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, this means if a guy bootlegging movies were to record those movies onto Memorex blank DVD's, then Memorex would be liable for copyright infringement, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543403</id>
	<title>Re:Any good news lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one, welcome our wise and judicious RIAA overlords.  Not!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one , welcome our wise and judicious RIAA overlords .
Not !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one, welcome our wise and judicious RIAA overlords.
Not!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542409</id>
	<title>Re:Not a seminal case</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246463460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=2&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.nytimes.com\%2F2009\%2F06\%2F30\%2Ftechnology\%2F30cable.html&amp;ei=MXdLStHBE5-ntgfH-9ibDQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNHpBtwTR-BF-bgqJMXnQrPLcTY-fQ&amp;sig2=sg3yrgN5k8ihaauU0g87Ng" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Use this link to avoid registration</a> [google.com] or see <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Supreme-Court-allows-wider-DVR-use/2100-1041\_3-6249838.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">the same exact same story on CNET</a> [cnet.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use this link to avoid registration [ google.com ] or see the same exact same story on CNET [ cnet.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use this link to avoid registration [google.com] or see the same exact same story on CNET [cnet.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28552691</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246458240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can definitely say with complete cromulence that Usenet is a ghost service of <b>no great importance</b>. Whatsoever. At all. Now or ever, in fact.</p></div><p>Netcraft just confirmed this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can definitely say with complete cromulence that Usenet is a ghost service of no great importance .
Whatsoever. At all .
Now or ever , in fact.Netcraft just confirmed this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can definitely say with complete cromulence that Usenet is a ghost service of no great importance.
Whatsoever. At all.
Now or ever, in fact.Netcraft just confirmed this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544097</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>hamburgler007</author>
	<datestamp>1246469160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your use of the word cromulence in your post embiggens it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your use of the word cromulence in your post embiggens it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your use of the word cromulence in your post embiggens it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542827</id>
	<title>Re:Any good news lately?</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1246465260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have been losing since the beginning of the widespread use of the Internet. The state (which is ran by such enterprises) wants to keep tight control over this (originally free and open) medium because they want to turn it into a sales  channel for their products.</p><p>And then the populace votes for these enterprises while feeling good that they had a choice and made the right one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have been losing since the beginning of the widespread use of the Internet .
The state ( which is ran by such enterprises ) wants to keep tight control over this ( originally free and open ) medium because they want to turn it into a sales channel for their products.And then the populace votes for these enterprises while feeling good that they had a choice and made the right one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have been losing since the beginning of the widespread use of the Internet.
The state (which is ran by such enterprises) wants to keep tight control over this (originally free and open) medium because they want to turn it into a sales  channel for their products.And then the populace votes for these enterprises while feeling good that they had a choice and made the right one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541817</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to state...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246461060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OH GNOES!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OH GNOES ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OH GNOES!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543547</id>
	<title>Boycott RIAA</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1246467600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't buy tunes from GOONS!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't buy tunes from GOONS !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't buy tunes from GOONS!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546881</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1246477440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Realizing they couldn't win on that issue, the music industry also invented the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private\_copying\_levy#United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">Blank media tax</a> [wikipedia.org].  They still get that, even today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Realizing they could n't win on that issue , the music industry also invented the Blank media tax [ wikipedia.org ] .
They still get that , even today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Realizing they couldn't win on that issue, the music industry also invented the Blank media tax [wikipedia.org].
They still get that, even today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542157</id>
	<title>Bear noted that Usenet.com differed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246462380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Bear noted that Usenet.com differed from Sony in that...</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...they weren't a multibillion dollar multinational corporation with deep pockets and more lawyers than law school reunions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bear noted that Usenet.com differed from Sony in that... ...they were n't a multibillion dollar multinational corporation with deep pockets and more lawyers than law school reunions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bear noted that Usenet.com differed from Sony in that... ...they weren't a multibillion dollar multinational corporation with deep pockets and more lawyers than law school reunions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873</id>
	<title>Any good news lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246461300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think we may be losing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we may be losing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we may be losing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546301</id>
	<title>In fact, it is shut down...</title>
	<author>Nexus7</author>
	<datestamp>1246475580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... or will soon be, since the judge ruled against it. And when Usenet.com is hut down, there will no longer be a Usenet to worry about, and the RIAA types can go way happy. So everybody calm down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... or will soon be , since the judge ruled against it .
And when Usenet.com is hut down , there will no longer be a Usenet to worry about , and the RIAA types can go way happy .
So everybody calm down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or will soon be, since the judge ruled against it.
And when Usenet.com is hut down, there will no longer be a Usenet to worry about, and the RIAA types can go way happy.
So everybody calm down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544511</id>
	<title>Re:If you ever go to court...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246470300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the hell is John Q. Public suppose to "if you don't like the law, work to change it,"<br>with his limited income and time. whereas the corporations have endless supply of money and lawyers.<br>that will do anything in there power to accomplish the task that the hiring company wants done.<br>regardless of the law<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. power corrupts absolutely</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell is John Q. Public suppose to " if you do n't like the law , work to change it , " with his limited income and time .
whereas the corporations have endless supply of money and lawyers.that will do anything in there power to accomplish the task that the hiring company wants done.regardless of the law .. power corrupts absolutely</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell is John Q. Public suppose to "if you don't like the law, work to change it,"with his limited income and time.
whereas the corporations have endless supply of money and lawyers.that will do anything in there power to accomplish the task that the hiring company wants done.regardless of the law .. power corrupts absolutely</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246462080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Usenet is still being used? I didn't think anybody posted there anymore.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes! You are correct. <i>Nobody</i> is using Usenet. Nobody. I can definitely say with complete cromulence that Usenet is a ghost service of <b>no great importance</b>. Whatsoever. At all. Now or ever, in fact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Usenet is still being used ?
I did n't think anybody posted there anymore.Yes !
You are correct .
Nobody is using Usenet .
Nobody. I can definitely say with complete cromulence that Usenet is a ghost service of no great importance .
Whatsoever. At all .
Now or ever , in fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usenet is still being used?
I didn't think anybody posted there anymore.Yes!
You are correct.
Nobody is using Usenet.
Nobody. I can definitely say with complete cromulence that Usenet is a ghost service of no great importance.
Whatsoever. At all.
Now or ever, in fact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542599</id>
	<title>Re:Now and Forever!</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1246464300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now and Forever,<br>Remember the songs from a CD,<br>Can always be sold again.</p><p>Lock it as tight,<br>as DRM will allow,<br>Until all the money is gone.<br>The Freedom that existed,<br>Is all over now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now and Forever,Remember the songs from a CD,Can always be sold again.Lock it as tight,as DRM will allow,Until all the money is gone.The Freedom that existed,Is all over now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now and Forever,Remember the songs from a CD,Can always be sold again.Lock it as tight,as DRM will allow,Until all the money is gone.The Freedom that existed,Is all over now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545205</id>
	<title>Re:If you ever go to court...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, how is Usenet.com supposed to have "destroyed evidence" anyway?  By allowing articles to expire?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , how is Usenet.com supposed to have " destroyed evidence " anyway ?
By allowing articles to expire ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, how is Usenet.com supposed to have "destroyed evidence" anyway?
By allowing articles to expire?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544141</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>arclyte</author>
	<datestamp>1246469220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just checked.  What he said is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.  Usenet is completely dead.  Full of spam.  Entirely worthless.  Nothing to see here, people, so just move along... I wouldn't even bother checking it out for yourself as there's just nothing there worth looking for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just checked .
What he said is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT .
Usenet is completely dead .
Full of spam .
Entirely worthless .
Nothing to see here , people , so just move along... I would n't even bother checking it out for yourself as there 's just nothing there worth looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just checked.
What he said is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
Usenet is completely dead.
Full of spam.
Entirely worthless.
Nothing to see here, people, so just move along... I wouldn't even bother checking it out for yourself as there's just nothing there worth looking for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542011</id>
	<title>So can you sue Google for finding my ISO files?</title>
	<author>iCantSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1246461900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does this mean Google is in the same boat? Technically google can do the same thing with filetype.</p><p>filetype:iso has been one of my greatest search modifiers when looking for my pirated copies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean Google is in the same boat ?
Technically google can do the same thing with filetype.filetype : iso has been one of my greatest search modifiers when looking for my pirated copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean Google is in the same boat?
Technically google can do the same thing with filetype.filetype:iso has been one of my greatest search modifiers when looking for my pirated copies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543329</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never used usenet.com but the case has broad implications for usenet (not just usenet.com).  At least the way the case describes usenet.com it was a news service (the same as giganews, etc.) that simply sold subscriptions to its news servers.  Yes there are a number of procedural/misconduct issues in this case that appear to have pissed the judge off (destroying evidence, advertising piracy, etc.) but at the end of the day this case found a news service liable and that has far reaching implications for usenet as a whole (once all the service providers with decent retention are gone usenet won't be particularly useful).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never used usenet.com but the case has broad implications for usenet ( not just usenet.com ) .
At least the way the case describes usenet.com it was a news service ( the same as giganews , etc .
) that simply sold subscriptions to its news servers .
Yes there are a number of procedural/misconduct issues in this case that appear to have pissed the judge off ( destroying evidence , advertising piracy , etc .
) but at the end of the day this case found a news service liable and that has far reaching implications for usenet as a whole ( once all the service providers with decent retention are gone usenet wo n't be particularly useful ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never used usenet.com but the case has broad implications for usenet (not just usenet.com).
At least the way the case describes usenet.com it was a news service (the same as giganews, etc.
) that simply sold subscriptions to its news servers.
Yes there are a number of procedural/misconduct issues in this case that appear to have pissed the judge off (destroying evidence, advertising piracy, etc.
) but at the end of the day this case found a news service liable and that has far reaching implications for usenet as a whole (once all the service providers with decent retention are gone usenet won't be particularly useful).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542165</id>
	<title>a new age in file-sharing is born</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246462380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kids, forget the internets.. I've got a whole NEW way of file-sharing with no pesky lawyers, no judges, no colluding ISPs, no Orwellian gubment "oversight".<br>It's called a "flash drive".</p><p>1. Put a song or movie onto your flash drive and give it to a friend.<br>2. They give it back to you with some of their songs or movies on it.<br>3. ???<br>4. We both haz profits!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kids , forget the internets.. I 've got a whole NEW way of file-sharing with no pesky lawyers , no judges , no colluding ISPs , no Orwellian gubment " oversight " .It 's called a " flash drive " .1 .
Put a song or movie onto your flash drive and give it to a friend.2 .
They give it back to you with some of their songs or movies on it.3 .
? ? ? 4. We both haz profits ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kids, forget the internets.. I've got a whole NEW way of file-sharing with no pesky lawyers, no judges, no colluding ISPs, no Orwellian gubment "oversight".It's called a "flash drive".1.
Put a song or movie onto your flash drive and give it to a friend.2.
They give it back to you with some of their songs or movies on it.3.
???4. We both haz profits!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546149</id>
	<title>Re:In other news . . .</title>
	<author>drdaz</author>
	<datestamp>1246475160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes you say this?</p><p>I just had a look at the site... It looks an awful lot like a usenet provider...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you say this ? I just had a look at the site... It looks an awful lot like a usenet provider.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you say this?I just had a look at the site... It looks an awful lot like a usenet provider...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545807</id>
	<title>Re:I Find This Troubling</title>
	<author>ZachPruckowski</author>
	<datestamp>1246474260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL, but Safe Harbor isn't a guarantee.  Just because you have a website with user-submitted content does not automatically grant you its protection.  There are a series of criteria to qualify, with some of the major ones being that you have to respond to takedowns promptly, and that if you exert any manner of editorial control (blocking some content and/or highlighting other content) you have to use that control to block infringing works as well.  It also doesn't apply if "infringing content" is your primary form of revenue.  Even without the discovery violations, usenet.com was hosed on a number of these points, especially the one about filtering and editorial control.
<br> <br>
Again, I am not a lawyer, but the bottom line is that Safe Harbor doesn't apply to everyone.  It's a "really, I'm honestly trying to do the right thing here" defense, which is laughable from usenet.com.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but Safe Harbor is n't a guarantee .
Just because you have a website with user-submitted content does not automatically grant you its protection .
There are a series of criteria to qualify , with some of the major ones being that you have to respond to takedowns promptly , and that if you exert any manner of editorial control ( blocking some content and/or highlighting other content ) you have to use that control to block infringing works as well .
It also does n't apply if " infringing content " is your primary form of revenue .
Even without the discovery violations , usenet.com was hosed on a number of these points , especially the one about filtering and editorial control .
Again , I am not a lawyer , but the bottom line is that Safe Harbor does n't apply to everyone .
It 's a " really , I 'm honestly trying to do the right thing here " defense , which is laughable from usenet.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but Safe Harbor isn't a guarantee.
Just because you have a website with user-submitted content does not automatically grant you its protection.
There are a series of criteria to qualify, with some of the major ones being that you have to respond to takedowns promptly, and that if you exert any manner of editorial control (blocking some content and/or highlighting other content) you have to use that control to block infringing works as well.
It also doesn't apply if "infringing content" is your primary form of revenue.
Even without the discovery violations, usenet.com was hosed on a number of these points, especially the one about filtering and editorial control.
Again, I am not a lawyer, but the bottom line is that Safe Harbor doesn't apply to everyone.
It's a "really, I'm honestly trying to do the right thing here" defense, which is laughable from usenet.com.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542877</id>
	<title>And always remember:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246465440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has nothing to do with the rights of the <em>artists</em>. It's purely about the <strong>copy</strong>right.</p><p>May they live forever, only wishing they could finally die from the horrors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has nothing to do with the rights of the artists .
It 's purely about the copyright.May they live forever , only wishing they could finally die from the horrors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has nothing to do with the rights of the artists.
It's purely about the copyright.May they live forever, only wishing they could finally die from the horrors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542421</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>cellurl</author>
	<datestamp>1246463520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember that high-speed copy dub button. I felt like such a pirate having that highspeedcopy button! It was the reason I bought a dual-cassette-deck...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember that high-speed copy dub button .
I felt like such a pirate having that highspeedcopy button !
It was the reason I bought a dual-cassette-deck.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember that high-speed copy dub button.
I felt like such a pirate having that highspeedcopy button!
It was the reason I bought a dual-cassette-deck...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541889</id>
	<title>If you ever go to court...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246461360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...do not piss off the judge!  It really is batshit stupid to do things like destroy evidence and make witnesses vanish (even temporarily).  Why not go to court naked except for a t-shirt that says "Guilty as Hell" on the front and "Kiss my hairy butt" on the back?</p><p>The only way to handle such things is to find a way to be the victim of the situation, to prove that you did what you could to help, and that the case is unfair, aggressive, and misplaced.</p><p>And, if you don't like the law, work to change it, don't sell ways to get around it.  Bad laws exist because people pretend they are helpless to change them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...do not piss off the judge !
It really is batshit stupid to do things like destroy evidence and make witnesses vanish ( even temporarily ) .
Why not go to court naked except for a t-shirt that says " Guilty as Hell " on the front and " Kiss my hairy butt " on the back ? The only way to handle such things is to find a way to be the victim of the situation , to prove that you did what you could to help , and that the case is unfair , aggressive , and misplaced.And , if you do n't like the law , work to change it , do n't sell ways to get around it .
Bad laws exist because people pretend they are helpless to change them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...do not piss off the judge!
It really is batshit stupid to do things like destroy evidence and make witnesses vanish (even temporarily).
Why not go to court naked except for a t-shirt that says "Guilty as Hell" on the front and "Kiss my hairy butt" on the back?The only way to handle such things is to find a way to be the victim of the situation, to prove that you did what you could to help, and that the case is unfair, aggressive, and misplaced.And, if you don't like the law, work to change it, don't sell ways to get around it.
Bad laws exist because people pretend they are helpless to change them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28561793</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day....</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1246563720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>here was a cost associated with each copy. You or your friend had to spring for the cost of a cassette. That small cost kept copying down. But, with digital media, there is no cost for successive copy</p></div></blockquote><p>I wish my garden had a SATA hard drive tree in it like yours.  Even a CD-R bush would be nice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>here was a cost associated with each copy .
You or your friend had to spring for the cost of a cassette .
That small cost kept copying down .
But , with digital media , there is no cost for successive copyI wish my garden had a SATA hard drive tree in it like yours .
Even a CD-R bush would be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here was a cost associated with each copy.
You or your friend had to spring for the cost of a cassette.
That small cost kept copying down.
But, with digital media, there is no cost for successive copyI wish my garden had a SATA hard drive tree in it like yours.
Even a CD-R bush would be nice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542575</id>
	<title>Re:So can you sue Google for finding my ISO files?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1246464240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>filetype:iso has been one of my greatest search modifiers when looking for my pirated copies.</p></div></blockquote><p>Isn't it simpler to just use a local file search to find your own files? To each his own I guess...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>filetype : iso has been one of my greatest search modifiers when looking for my pirated copies.Is n't it simpler to just use a local file search to find your own files ?
To each his own I guess.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>filetype:iso has been one of my greatest search modifiers when looking for my pirated copies.Isn't it simpler to just use a local file search to find your own files?
To each his own I guess...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542011</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28552619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28552691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28552321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28561839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28550175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28561793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28550115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28551903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28550209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28549509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1332215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28552619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28550209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542955
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542593
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28552691
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28550175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28541873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28550115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542159
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542551
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28561839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28549509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28552321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28551903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542983
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543503
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28546227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28543179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545795
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28561793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28544265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28545521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1332215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1332215.28542233
</commentlist>
</conversation>
