<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_04_134235</id>
	<title>Jammie Thomas To Appeal $1.9 Million RIAA Verdict</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246718640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CNet reports that the lawyers representing Jammie Thomas-Rasset have confirmed <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023\_3-10277701-93.html">she will be fighting the $1.9 million verdict</a> handed down in <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/18/227219/In-Round-2-Jammie-Thomas-Jury-Awards-RIAA-1920000?from=rss">her case against the RIAA</a>.
<i>"The Recording Industry Association of America said on Monday that it had made a phone call to Sibley and law partner Kiwi Camara last week to ask whether Thomas-Rasset wanted to discuss a settlement. An RIAA representative said that its lawyers were told by Sibley that Thomas-Rasset wasn't interested in discussing any deal that required her to admit guilt or pay any money. ... 'She's not interested in settling,' attorney Joe Sibley said in a brief phone interview. 'She wants to take the issue up on appeal on the constitutionality of the damages. That's one of the main arguments &mdash; that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNet reports that the lawyers representing Jammie Thomas-Rasset have confirmed she will be fighting the $ 1.9 million verdict handed down in her case against the RIAA .
" The Recording Industry Association of America said on Monday that it had made a phone call to Sibley and law partner Kiwi Camara last week to ask whether Thomas-Rasset wanted to discuss a settlement .
An RIAA representative said that its lawyers were told by Sibley that Thomas-Rasset was n't interested in discussing any deal that required her to admit guilt or pay any money .
... 'She 's not interested in settling, ' attorney Joe Sibley said in a brief phone interview .
'She wants to take the issue up on appeal on the constitutionality of the damages .
That 's one of the main arguments    that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNet reports that the lawyers representing Jammie Thomas-Rasset have confirmed she will be fighting the $1.9 million verdict handed down in her case against the RIAA.
"The Recording Industry Association of America said on Monday that it had made a phone call to Sibley and law partner Kiwi Camara last week to ask whether Thomas-Rasset wanted to discuss a settlement.
An RIAA representative said that its lawyers were told by Sibley that Thomas-Rasset wasn't interested in discussing any deal that required her to admit guilt or pay any money.
... 'She's not interested in settling,' attorney Joe Sibley said in a brief phone interview.
'She wants to take the issue up on appeal on the constitutionality of the damages.
That's one of the main arguments — that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581659</id>
	<title>Re:Am I Alone?</title>
	<author>xbytor</author>
	<datestamp>1246735260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I made this point in an earlier thread. The defense new that they didn't have time to put together a proper defense. They knew they had several valid reasons for an appeal so let the case tank while they worked on their longer range goals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I made this point in an earlier thread .
The defense new that they did n't have time to put together a proper defense .
They knew they had several valid reasons for an appeal so let the case tank while they worked on their longer range goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made this point in an earlier thread.
The defense new that they didn't have time to put together a proper defense.
They knew they had several valid reasons for an appeal so let the case tank while they worked on their longer range goals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28584517</id>
	<title>Re:Exxon Valdez, Anybody</title>
	<author>zaivala</author>
	<datestamp>1246729980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>EXXON has yet to pay the full damages awarded by the court, so I fail to see the comparison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>EXXON has yet to pay the full damages awarded by the court , so I fail to see the comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EXXON has yet to pay the full damages awarded by the court, so I fail to see the comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28590749</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>rgarbacz</author>
	<datestamp>1246813500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that damages should be calculated in a different way, because we do not talk about potential (very potential) revenues, but about damages.<br> <br>
So, lets check the RIAA income from selling the very songs, compare it before, during, and after the alleged uploading, correct the comparison with the natural sales decline (from other similar songs considering popularity), do the simple math and then we can talk about actual "damages", and not wishful revenues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that damages should be calculated in a different way , because we do not talk about potential ( very potential ) revenues , but about damages .
So , lets check the RIAA income from selling the very songs , compare it before , during , and after the alleged uploading , correct the comparison with the natural sales decline ( from other similar songs considering popularity ) , do the simple math and then we can talk about actual " damages " , and not wishful revenues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that damages should be calculated in a different way, because we do not talk about potential (very potential) revenues, but about damages.
So, lets check the RIAA income from selling the very songs, compare it before, during, and after the alleged uploading, correct the comparison with the natural sales decline (from other similar songs considering popularity), do the simple math and then we can talk about actual "damages", and not wishful revenues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28584685</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>Endymion</author>
	<datestamp>1246733640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Upload speed of a cable modem? You're falling into the trap that the RIAA and others are playing.</p><p><i>Potential</i> upload speeds aren't relevant here. That's all fancy numbers thrown around, to justify large statutory damages by implying someone <i>could have</i> uploaded a lot of copies of any given work.</p><p>Some simple math:<br>
&nbsp; - There are N people that want a song, and download it over P2P<br>
&nbsp; - Number of copies that have to be made: N<br>
&nbsp; - Number of people providing those copies: ~N, on most P2P networks<br>
&nbsp; - average (mean) copies made by any one person: (number of copies made)/(number of uploaders) =&gt; (N/N) =&gt; <b>1.</b></p><p>On average, any given copyright infringer is making a <b>single</b> copy. Any discussion of damages, statutory or actual, needs to take this harsh reality into consideration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Upload speed of a cable modem ?
You 're falling into the trap that the RIAA and others are playing.Potential upload speeds are n't relevant here .
That 's all fancy numbers thrown around , to justify large statutory damages by implying someone could have uploaded a lot of copies of any given work.Some simple math :   - There are N people that want a song , and download it over P2P   - Number of copies that have to be made : N   - Number of people providing those copies : ~ N , on most P2P networks   - average ( mean ) copies made by any one person : ( number of copies made ) / ( number of uploaders ) = &gt; ( N/N ) = &gt; 1.On average , any given copyright infringer is making a single copy .
Any discussion of damages , statutory or actual , needs to take this harsh reality into consideration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upload speed of a cable modem?
You're falling into the trap that the RIAA and others are playing.Potential upload speeds aren't relevant here.
That's all fancy numbers thrown around, to justify large statutory damages by implying someone could have uploaded a lot of copies of any given work.Some simple math:
  - There are N people that want a song, and download it over P2P
  - Number of copies that have to be made: N
  - Number of people providing those copies: ~N, on most P2P networks
  - average (mean) copies made by any one person: (number of copies made)/(number of uploaders) =&gt; (N/N) =&gt; 1.On average, any given copyright infringer is making a single copy.
Any discussion of damages, statutory or actual, needs to take this harsh reality into consideration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581131</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>nitehawk214</author>
	<datestamp>1246731060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>no downtime (infinite nines!)</p></div><p>I don't know where you come from, but here we call that 100\%.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>no downtime ( infinite nines !
) I do n't know where you come from , but here we call that 100 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no downtime (infinite nines!
)I don't know where you come from, but here we call that 100\%.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113</id>
	<title>I hope she gets a second opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246722540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the track record of her lawyers, she could end up with a life sentence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the track record of her lawyers , she could end up with a life sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the track record of her lawyers, she could end up with a life sentence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580885</id>
	<title>Re:Am I Alone?</title>
	<author>PiSkyHi</author>
	<datestamp>1246729320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm with you, I have been reading many posters comments that seem to in some way admit she is a criminal, even if some wish she had a defense.</p><p>Now, she may have been found guilty, but of what ?. If this does go the way I think it will, the class action is the deal that needs to be done and we all know it - it just can't keep going this way with RIAA, many people including many judges surely feel this way as well and for the RIAA going against the people who can help legislate, in a democracy, their time will come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with you , I have been reading many posters comments that seem to in some way admit she is a criminal , even if some wish she had a defense.Now , she may have been found guilty , but of what ? .
If this does go the way I think it will , the class action is the deal that needs to be done and we all know it - it just ca n't keep going this way with RIAA , many people including many judges surely feel this way as well and for the RIAA going against the people who can help legislate , in a democracy , their time will come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with you, I have been reading many posters comments that seem to in some way admit she is a criminal, even if some wish she had a defense.Now, she may have been found guilty, but of what ?.
If this does go the way I think it will, the class action is the deal that needs to be done and we all know it - it just can't keep going this way with RIAA, many people including many judges surely feel this way as well and for the RIAA going against the people who can help legislate, in a democracy, their time will come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580651</id>
	<title>Re:not necessarily disproportionate</title>
	<author>fuzznutz</author>
	<datestamp>1246727220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay Mr. Devil's Advocate.  Some things to consider.<ul>
<li>Statutory damages are not punitive damages.</li><li>There is limited bandwidth for uploads.</li><li>It is unreasonable to assume 100\% upload bandwidth would be used for file sharing.  The defendant would have shut down the program for disrupting other usage.</li><li>The time frame for uploads must be limited.</li><li>If L is calculable, why are they seeking statutory damages?</li><li>D must be zero (see point 1)</li><li>GPL violation suits nearly invariably target COMMERCIAL distribution.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay Mr. Devil 's Advocate .
Some things to consider .
Statutory damages are not punitive damages.There is limited bandwidth for uploads.It is unreasonable to assume 100 \ % upload bandwidth would be used for file sharing .
The defendant would have shut down the program for disrupting other usage.The time frame for uploads must be limited.If L is calculable , why are they seeking statutory damages ? D must be zero ( see point 1 ) GPL violation suits nearly invariably target COMMERCIAL distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay Mr. Devil's Advocate.
Some things to consider.
Statutory damages are not punitive damages.There is limited bandwidth for uploads.It is unreasonable to assume 100\% upload bandwidth would be used for file sharing.
The defendant would have shut down the program for disrupting other usage.The time frame for uploads must be limited.If L is calculable, why are they seeking statutory damages?D must be zero (see point 1)GPL violation suits nearly invariably target COMMERCIAL distribution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581223</id>
	<title>Re:Pay up thief</title>
	<author>An ominous Cow art</author>
	<datestamp>1246731900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Life in Guantanamo?  Are you insane?  What if the League of Evil breaks her out?  No, this clearly calls for the death penalty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Life in Guantanamo ?
Are you insane ?
What if the League of Evil breaks her out ?
No , this clearly calls for the death penalty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Life in Guantanamo?
Are you insane?
What if the League of Evil breaks her out?
No, this clearly calls for the death penalty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580665</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246727340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That argument is wrong.</p><p>The fines on big companies should be just as proportionate. And they are. Because there they get fined millions, but also SOLD millions of fake CDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That argument is wrong.The fines on big companies should be just as proportionate .
And they are .
Because there they get fined millions , but also SOLD millions of fake CDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That argument is wrong.The fines on big companies should be just as proportionate.
And they are.
Because there they get fined millions, but also SOLD millions of fake CDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580417</id>
	<title>Re:Well DUH!</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1246725420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree. This has blown this issue out of the 'techie' blogs and sites, and into the mainstream. I actually had non-technical folk ask me if I'd heard about it. This has far more visibility than I think the RIAA wanted. They may claim to be all about 'educating the public', but we know that's not the case:  <a href="http://www.groundreport.com/Media\_and\_Tech/Judge-Orders-RIAA-Hearing-to-be-Televised-RIAA-Fil" title="groundreport.com">http://www.groundreport.com/Media\_and\_Tech/Judge-Orders-RIAA-Hearing-to-be-Televised-RIAA-Fil</a> [groundreport.com] <br> <br>

Any sensible person has to look at this and think WTF? I still have to wonder how they could have ever come out of this with such a large judgement for 24 songs unless the defense was being purposely stupid not to put too fine a point on it. It just boggles the mind that a judgement this large could come down with any sort of reasonable argument from the defense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree .
This has blown this issue out of the 'techie ' blogs and sites , and into the mainstream .
I actually had non-technical folk ask me if I 'd heard about it .
This has far more visibility than I think the RIAA wanted .
They may claim to be all about 'educating the public ' , but we know that 's not the case : http : //www.groundreport.com/Media \ _and \ _Tech/Judge-Orders-RIAA-Hearing-to-be-Televised-RIAA-Fil [ groundreport.com ] Any sensible person has to look at this and think WTF ?
I still have to wonder how they could have ever come out of this with such a large judgement for 24 songs unless the defense was being purposely stupid not to put too fine a point on it .
It just boggles the mind that a judgement this large could come down with any sort of reasonable argument from the defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.
This has blown this issue out of the 'techie' blogs and sites, and into the mainstream.
I actually had non-technical folk ask me if I'd heard about it.
This has far more visibility than I think the RIAA wanted.
They may claim to be all about 'educating the public', but we know that's not the case:  http://www.groundreport.com/Media\_and\_Tech/Judge-Orders-RIAA-Hearing-to-be-Televised-RIAA-Fil [groundreport.com]  

Any sensible person has to look at this and think WTF?
I still have to wonder how they could have ever come out of this with such a large judgement for 24 songs unless the defense was being purposely stupid not to put too fine a point on it.
It just boggles the mind that a judgement this large could come down with any sort of reasonable argument from the defense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121</id>
	<title>Of Course</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1246722540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> 'She wants to take the issue up on appeal on the constitutionality of the damages. That's one of the main arguments -- that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm.'" <br>Of course they're disproportionate to any actual harm.  That's the whole point.  The damages are meant to be a deterrent against future abuses.  The RIAA is sticking her head on a pike as a warning to others.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>'She wants to take the issue up on appeal on the constitutionality of the damages .
That 's one of the main arguments -- that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm .
' " Of course they 're disproportionate to any actual harm .
That 's the whole point .
The damages are meant to be a deterrent against future abuses .
The RIAA is sticking her head on a pike as a warning to others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'She wants to take the issue up on appeal on the constitutionality of the damages.
That's one of the main arguments -- that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm.
'" Of course they're disproportionate to any actual harm.
That's the whole point.
The damages are meant to be a deterrent against future abuses.
The RIAA is sticking her head on a pike as a warning to others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581167</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246731420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Juries do not like it when clearly guilty defendants tell a shifting tale of several badly told obvious lies, and that tends to push damages up.</p></div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><b>...to $1.92 million.</b>  Assuming a household income of $50,233.00 (the median), and moreover assuming that the defendant will cease eating, receiving medial treatment, or paying for rent, water, or electricity from now on, it will take over 38 years to pay that off.</p><p>The jury might as well have just ordered the woman executed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Juries do not like it when clearly guilty defendants tell a shifting tale of several badly told obvious lies , and that tends to push damages up .
...to $ 1.92 million .
Assuming a household income of $ 50,233.00 ( the median ) , and moreover assuming that the defendant will cease eating , receiving medial treatment , or paying for rent , water , or electricity from now on , it will take over 38 years to pay that off.The jury might as well have just ordered the woman executed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Juries do not like it when clearly guilty defendants tell a shifting tale of several badly told obvious lies, and that tends to push damages up.
...to $1.92 million.
Assuming a household income of $50,233.00 (the median), and moreover assuming that the defendant will cease eating, receiving medial treatment, or paying for rent, water, or electricity from now on, it will take over 38 years to pay that off.The jury might as well have just ordered the woman executed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581863</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246737360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Here is the part I don't understand: on one hand she is not "interested in discussing any deal that required her to admit guilt or pay any money" but on the other hand the main argument of the appeal is "that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm." Doesn't it mean that she is admitting that harm occurred and only challenging the amount? It seems like her main argument is at odds with her unwillingness to accept any guilt or settle for any amount.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, you could deny guilt, but -- especially if the court has already ruled against you -- argue on general principle that the damages are excessive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the part I do n't understand : on one hand she is not " interested in discussing any deal that required her to admit guilt or pay any money " but on the other hand the main argument of the appeal is " that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm .
" Does n't it mean that she is admitting that harm occurred and only challenging the amount ?
It seems like her main argument is at odds with her unwillingness to accept any guilt or settle for any amount.Well , you could deny guilt , but -- especially if the court has already ruled against you -- argue on general principle that the damages are excessive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the part I don't understand: on one hand she is not "interested in discussing any deal that required her to admit guilt or pay any money" but on the other hand the main argument of the appeal is "that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm.
" Doesn't it mean that she is admitting that harm occurred and only challenging the amount?
It seems like her main argument is at odds with her unwillingness to accept any guilt or settle for any amount.Well, you could deny guilt, but -- especially if the court has already ruled against you -- argue on general principle that the damages are excessive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580579</id>
	<title>Re:not necessarily disproportionate</title>
	<author>kanweg</author>
	<datestamp>1246726620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So it seems to me there's a pretty strong logical case to be made that you should calculate the damages like this: 24x$1xNxBxLxD. N is the total number of people who downloaded the song (and, as argued above, not just the number who got a copy directly from the ones Thomas put up). "</p><p>OK, but that would also mean that a person who downloaded a song from her cannot be sued by the RIAA because it already received the damages for that. It seems fair to me that Jammie has a right of recourse on the downloader, although I doubt that would make her happy.</p><p>I think it is also fair that the RIAA proves that the 24 songs were not already paid for by someone else they had sued.</p><p>Bert<br>Who no longer has any illegitimate songs (and movies), but does have CDs now from several of the tapes he had when he was a student. If that makes the RIAA happy, I've bad news. iTunes allowed me to buy several songs for which I'd never bought the CD, but now I've effectively stopped buying music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So it seems to me there 's a pretty strong logical case to be made that you should calculate the damages like this : 24x $ 1xNxBxLxD .
N is the total number of people who downloaded the song ( and , as argued above , not just the number who got a copy directly from the ones Thomas put up ) .
" OK , but that would also mean that a person who downloaded a song from her can not be sued by the RIAA because it already received the damages for that .
It seems fair to me that Jammie has a right of recourse on the downloader , although I doubt that would make her happy.I think it is also fair that the RIAA proves that the 24 songs were not already paid for by someone else they had sued.BertWho no longer has any illegitimate songs ( and movies ) , but does have CDs now from several of the tapes he had when he was a student .
If that makes the RIAA happy , I 've bad news .
iTunes allowed me to buy several songs for which I 'd never bought the CD , but now I 've effectively stopped buying music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So it seems to me there's a pretty strong logical case to be made that you should calculate the damages like this: 24x$1xNxBxLxD.
N is the total number of people who downloaded the song (and, as argued above, not just the number who got a copy directly from the ones Thomas put up).
"OK, but that would also mean that a person who downloaded a song from her cannot be sued by the RIAA because it already received the damages for that.
It seems fair to me that Jammie has a right of recourse on the downloader, although I doubt that would make her happy.I think it is also fair that the RIAA proves that the 24 songs were not already paid for by someone else they had sued.BertWho no longer has any illegitimate songs (and movies), but does have CDs now from several of the tapes he had when he was a student.
If that makes the RIAA happy, I've bad news.
iTunes allowed me to buy several songs for which I'd never bought the CD, but now I've effectively stopped buying music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581279</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>think\_nix</author>
	<datestamp>1246732200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If one does the math it is easy to see it was impossible for her to have caused $1.92 million damage.</p> </div><p>Yes exactly the point. I dont know all the details of the case. But why hasn't the defense called in some kind of "Statistic Bean Counter"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/* with an idea of p2p technology of course */ to their defense ? Maybe would have swayed the judges decision ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If one does the math it is easy to see it was impossible for her to have caused $ 1.92 million damage .
Yes exactly the point .
I dont know all the details of the case .
But why has n't the defense called in some kind of " Statistic Bean Counter " / * with an idea of p2p technology of course * / to their defense ?
Maybe would have swayed the judges decision ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one does the math it is easy to see it was impossible for her to have caused $1.92 million damage.
Yes exactly the point.
I dont know all the details of the case.
But why hasn't the defense called in some kind of "Statistic Bean Counter" /* with an idea of p2p technology of course */ to their defense ?
Maybe would have swayed the judges decision ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28585841</id>
	<title>Re:Well DUH!</title>
	<author>Cytotoxic</author>
	<datestamp>1246801020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This has far more visibility than I think the RIAA wanted. They may claim to be all about 'educating the public', but we know that's not the case:  <a href="http://www.groundreport.com/Media\_and\_Tech/Judge-Orders-RIAA-Hearing-to-be-Televised-RIAA-Fil" title="groundreport.com">http://www.groundreport.com/Media\_and\_Tech/Judge-Orders-RIAA-Hearing-to-be-Televised-RIAA-Fil</a> [groundreport.com]</p> </div><p>
I think your analysis misses the point of the RIAA's actions.  They don't want publicity for their actions at trial, they want publicity for "don't download music or you'll wreck your life."  As such they got exactly what they wanted, no gory details of legal sausage-making and a headline grabbing verdict of "pay a metric crap-ton of money for using Kazaa".  Now that they have their headline-grabbing verdict, they can try to get her to settle for a much lower amount to avoid the risk of a business model destroying verdict on appeal.  All they really needed was the publicity for the danger of P2P downloads anyway - it's not like they needed the cash.  They probably spent many times more on legal work.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has far more visibility than I think the RIAA wanted .
They may claim to be all about 'educating the public ' , but we know that 's not the case : http : //www.groundreport.com/Media \ _and \ _Tech/Judge-Orders-RIAA-Hearing-to-be-Televised-RIAA-Fil [ groundreport.com ] I think your analysis misses the point of the RIAA 's actions .
They do n't want publicity for their actions at trial , they want publicity for " do n't download music or you 'll wreck your life .
" As such they got exactly what they wanted , no gory details of legal sausage-making and a headline grabbing verdict of " pay a metric crap-ton of money for using Kazaa " .
Now that they have their headline-grabbing verdict , they can try to get her to settle for a much lower amount to avoid the risk of a business model destroying verdict on appeal .
All they really needed was the publicity for the danger of P2P downloads anyway - it 's not like they needed the cash .
They probably spent many times more on legal work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has far more visibility than I think the RIAA wanted.
They may claim to be all about 'educating the public', but we know that's not the case:  http://www.groundreport.com/Media\_and\_Tech/Judge-Orders-RIAA-Hearing-to-be-Televised-RIAA-Fil [groundreport.com] 
I think your analysis misses the point of the RIAA's actions.
They don't want publicity for their actions at trial, they want publicity for "don't download music or you'll wreck your life.
"  As such they got exactly what they wanted, no gory details of legal sausage-making and a headline grabbing verdict of "pay a metric crap-ton of money for using Kazaa".
Now that they have their headline-grabbing verdict, they can try to get her to settle for a much lower amount to avoid the risk of a business model destroying verdict on appeal.
All they really needed was the publicity for the danger of P2P downloads anyway - it's not like they needed the cash.
They probably spent many times more on legal work.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580727</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246727820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And when did deterrents ever stop murders or kids making copies of songs for their friends?</i> </p><p>Murder rates in countries with a tradition of strong and effective law enforcement tend to be quite low. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_intentional\_homicide\_rate" title="wikipedia.org">List of countries by intentional homicide rate</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>The extortion kidnapping as an organized criminal enterprise was effectively extinguished in the U.S. in the nineteen thirties.</p><p> In Mexico it dominates the news. <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i-BfE4CKPtYiHveA27\_I5WUXVViQD990398G0" title="google.com">Mexico refuses to send French kidnap convict home</a> [google.com] [June 22]</p><p>In the U.S. it isn't the kid who is being sued. It is her parent or guardian.</p><p> The one the geek is always saying should bear the responsibility when things go wrong at home.</p><p><i>The big fines were intended to make professional copyright violations where some factory turns out hundreds or thousands of copies of fake product unprofitable. Using the same law to beat up some random person is disproportionate.</i> </p><p>The civil judgment isn't a fine.</p><p> It's an award of damages for your unlicensed wholesale distribution. You aren't distributing a fake - you are distributing the real thing.</p><p>The production budget for a film like WALL-E is about $200 million dollars - double that for marketing and other costs.</p><p> The film represents four or five years of full or part-time work of four hundred highly skilled artists and engineers  - and raked in hundreds of millions of export dollars.</p><p>Should it surprise the geek that the government doesn't want to see all that go away?</p><p>Should it surprise the geek that talent at this level is more likely to be invested in sequels to <i>Toy Story</i> and <i>Ice Age</i> than in the original - adult-oriented - sci-fi and fantasy films he claims he really wants to see?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And when did deterrents ever stop murders or kids making copies of songs for their friends ?
Murder rates in countries with a tradition of strong and effective law enforcement tend to be quite low .
List of countries by intentional homicide rate [ wikipedia.org ] The extortion kidnapping as an organized criminal enterprise was effectively extinguished in the U.S. in the nineteen thirties .
In Mexico it dominates the news .
Mexico refuses to send French kidnap convict home [ google.com ] [ June 22 ] In the U.S. it is n't the kid who is being sued .
It is her parent or guardian .
The one the geek is always saying should bear the responsibility when things go wrong at home.The big fines were intended to make professional copyright violations where some factory turns out hundreds or thousands of copies of fake product unprofitable .
Using the same law to beat up some random person is disproportionate .
The civil judgment is n't a fine .
It 's an award of damages for your unlicensed wholesale distribution .
You are n't distributing a fake - you are distributing the real thing.The production budget for a film like WALL-E is about $ 200 million dollars - double that for marketing and other costs .
The film represents four or five years of full or part-time work of four hundred highly skilled artists and engineers - and raked in hundreds of millions of export dollars.Should it surprise the geek that the government does n't want to see all that go away ? Should it surprise the geek that talent at this level is more likely to be invested in sequels to Toy Story and Ice Age than in the original - adult-oriented - sci-fi and fantasy films he claims he really wants to see ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when did deterrents ever stop murders or kids making copies of songs for their friends?
Murder rates in countries with a tradition of strong and effective law enforcement tend to be quite low.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate [wikipedia.org] The extortion kidnapping as an organized criminal enterprise was effectively extinguished in the U.S. in the nineteen thirties.
In Mexico it dominates the news.
Mexico refuses to send French kidnap convict home [google.com] [June 22]In the U.S. it isn't the kid who is being sued.
It is her parent or guardian.
The one the geek is always saying should bear the responsibility when things go wrong at home.The big fines were intended to make professional copyright violations where some factory turns out hundreds or thousands of copies of fake product unprofitable.
Using the same law to beat up some random person is disproportionate.
The civil judgment isn't a fine.
It's an award of damages for your unlicensed wholesale distribution.
You aren't distributing a fake - you are distributing the real thing.The production budget for a film like WALL-E is about $200 million dollars - double that for marketing and other costs.
The film represents four or five years of full or part-time work of four hundred highly skilled artists and engineers  - and raked in hundreds of millions of export dollars.Should it surprise the geek that the government doesn't want to see all that go away?Should it surprise the geek that talent at this level is more likely to be invested in sequels to Toy Story and Ice Age than in the original - adult-oriented - sci-fi and fantasy films he claims he really wants to see?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580877</id>
	<title>Jeez I hope they do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246729260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>230 plus years was a good run, time to break it apart and try again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>230 plus years was a good run , time to break it apart and try again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>230 plus years was a good run, time to break it apart and try again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581629</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1246734900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That's all beside the point. The damages awarded were statutory damages as set by the law.</i></p><p>Correct.</p><p>However, statutory damages are supposed to be a reasonable substitute for actual damages when actual damages are difficult to compute. So its fair to point out that the 'statutory damages' are not only out of line, but are out of line for any case in this 'class' (of noncommercial p2p infringement), and that they are so out of line that that the statute itself is defective, even unconstitutional.</p><p><i>On the first glance it seems that $80K per song is too high but then I don't know the technical argument for it.</i></p><p>There is no technical argument for it. The statute was written to address and punish people who created and sold counterfeit copies of books, movies, records, etc.</p><p>P2p internet sharing didn't exist. At the time to do any serious infringement, you needed replication equipment, and blank media, and so on... it would be time consuming and expensive. The people doing it would have to be deliberately engaged in this, and would almost invariably be charging money to cover their costs. It would almost have to a fairly large scale commercial enterprise to be of significant scale.</p><p>The idea that a barely computer literate person could commit "massive unauthorized distribution infringement" on the same scale, at no cost whatsoever, as essentially a "side effect" of obtaining a few songs for their own personal noncommercial use, via a simple computer program and a few mouse clicks was simply unimagined by the statute authors.</p><p><i>Doesn't it mean that she is admitting that harm occurred and only challenging the amount? It seems like her main argument is at odds with her unwillingness to accept any guilt or settle for any amount.</i></p><p>Admitting harm occurred is not the same as admitting personal culpability for the harm.</p><p>Suppose you came over to my house, twisted your ankle on the front step, and then sued me.</p><p>I'm going to deny that I'm responsible. My front step is well maintained, with a solid railing, and a non-slip mat. It is level, clear of toys and other hazards. I refuse to accept guilt or settle. I have done nothing wrong.</p><p>But that's not to say I'm going to deny you were harmed. Your ankle was twisted. I accept that.</p><p>So you sue me, and the jury sides with you. So be it, that's life. Then the court awards you 20,000,000 dollars.</p><p>And I'm in the same position as Jammie. I maintain I did nothing wrong, I agree you twisted your ankle, and am disputing the amount of the award.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all beside the point .
The damages awarded were statutory damages as set by the law.Correct.However , statutory damages are supposed to be a reasonable substitute for actual damages when actual damages are difficult to compute .
So its fair to point out that the 'statutory damages ' are not only out of line , but are out of line for any case in this 'class ' ( of noncommercial p2p infringement ) , and that they are so out of line that that the statute itself is defective , even unconstitutional.On the first glance it seems that $ 80K per song is too high but then I do n't know the technical argument for it.There is no technical argument for it .
The statute was written to address and punish people who created and sold counterfeit copies of books , movies , records , etc.P2p internet sharing did n't exist .
At the time to do any serious infringement , you needed replication equipment , and blank media , and so on... it would be time consuming and expensive .
The people doing it would have to be deliberately engaged in this , and would almost invariably be charging money to cover their costs .
It would almost have to a fairly large scale commercial enterprise to be of significant scale.The idea that a barely computer literate person could commit " massive unauthorized distribution infringement " on the same scale , at no cost whatsoever , as essentially a " side effect " of obtaining a few songs for their own personal noncommercial use , via a simple computer program and a few mouse clicks was simply unimagined by the statute authors.Does n't it mean that she is admitting that harm occurred and only challenging the amount ?
It seems like her main argument is at odds with her unwillingness to accept any guilt or settle for any amount.Admitting harm occurred is not the same as admitting personal culpability for the harm.Suppose you came over to my house , twisted your ankle on the front step , and then sued me.I 'm going to deny that I 'm responsible .
My front step is well maintained , with a solid railing , and a non-slip mat .
It is level , clear of toys and other hazards .
I refuse to accept guilt or settle .
I have done nothing wrong.But that 's not to say I 'm going to deny you were harmed .
Your ankle was twisted .
I accept that.So you sue me , and the jury sides with you .
So be it , that 's life .
Then the court awards you 20,000,000 dollars.And I 'm in the same position as Jammie .
I maintain I did nothing wrong , I agree you twisted your ankle , and am disputing the amount of the award .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all beside the point.
The damages awarded were statutory damages as set by the law.Correct.However, statutory damages are supposed to be a reasonable substitute for actual damages when actual damages are difficult to compute.
So its fair to point out that the 'statutory damages' are not only out of line, but are out of line for any case in this 'class' (of noncommercial p2p infringement), and that they are so out of line that that the statute itself is defective, even unconstitutional.On the first glance it seems that $80K per song is too high but then I don't know the technical argument for it.There is no technical argument for it.
The statute was written to address and punish people who created and sold counterfeit copies of books, movies, records, etc.P2p internet sharing didn't exist.
At the time to do any serious infringement, you needed replication equipment, and blank media, and so on... it would be time consuming and expensive.
The people doing it would have to be deliberately engaged in this, and would almost invariably be charging money to cover their costs.
It would almost have to a fairly large scale commercial enterprise to be of significant scale.The idea that a barely computer literate person could commit "massive unauthorized distribution infringement" on the same scale, at no cost whatsoever, as essentially a "side effect" of obtaining a few songs for their own personal noncommercial use, via a simple computer program and a few mouse clicks was simply unimagined by the statute authors.Doesn't it mean that she is admitting that harm occurred and only challenging the amount?
It seems like her main argument is at odds with her unwillingness to accept any guilt or settle for any amount.Admitting harm occurred is not the same as admitting personal culpability for the harm.Suppose you came over to my house, twisted your ankle on the front step, and then sued me.I'm going to deny that I'm responsible.
My front step is well maintained, with a solid railing, and a non-slip mat.
It is level, clear of toys and other hazards.
I refuse to accept guilt or settle.
I have done nothing wrong.But that's not to say I'm going to deny you were harmed.
Your ankle was twisted.
I accept that.So you sue me, and the jury sides with you.
So be it, that's life.
Then the court awards you 20,000,000 dollars.And I'm in the same position as Jammie.
I maintain I did nothing wrong, I agree you twisted your ankle, and am disputing the amount of the award.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580663</id>
	<title>Re:not necessarily disproportionate</title>
	<author>fuzznutz</author>
	<datestamp>1246727340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And another thing...<br> <br>
It doesn't even pass the laugh test.  $2 million for 24 songs?????</htmltext>
<tokenext>And another thing.. . It does n't even pass the laugh test .
$ 2 million for 24 songs ? ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And another thing... 
It doesn't even pass the laugh test.
$2 million for 24 songs????
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581571</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246734480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Last time I checked, if you get a song from iTunes, it does not include a license to make the song available for an arbitrary, untracked, number of uploads to other people. If you were to write to the rights holders for the songs involved and ask what it would cost to get a license for unrestricted, untracked, copying and redistribution, I am pretty sure they would ask for more than $1 per song.</p></div><p>Correct.  However, SoundExchange offers, to anyone who wants them, at $.0019/song/listener (2010 rates, have increased every year).  If you can classify your peer-to-peer program as an Internet Radio Server then you can stream over 500 copies of a song for $99.  </p><p>
If the downloader chooses to store a copy of the stream in a file, rather than just listening to it once, then they are the ones committing copyright infringement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked , if you get a song from iTunes , it does not include a license to make the song available for an arbitrary , untracked , number of uploads to other people .
If you were to write to the rights holders for the songs involved and ask what it would cost to get a license for unrestricted , untracked , copying and redistribution , I am pretty sure they would ask for more than $ 1 per song.Correct .
However , SoundExchange offers , to anyone who wants them , at $ .0019/song/listener ( 2010 rates , have increased every year ) .
If you can classify your peer-to-peer program as an Internet Radio Server then you can stream over 500 copies of a song for $ 99 .
If the downloader chooses to store a copy of the stream in a file , rather than just listening to it once , then they are the ones committing copyright infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Last time I checked, if you get a song from iTunes, it does not include a license to make the song available for an arbitrary, untracked, number of uploads to other people.
If you were to write to the rights holders for the songs involved and ask what it would cost to get a license for unrestricted, untracked, copying and redistribution, I am pretty sure they would ask for more than $1 per song.Correct.
However, SoundExchange offers, to anyone who wants them, at $.0019/song/listener (2010 rates, have increased every year).
If you can classify your peer-to-peer program as an Internet Radio Server then you can stream over 500 copies of a song for $99.
If the downloader chooses to store a copy of the stream in a file, rather than just listening to it once, then they are the ones committing copyright infringement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581029</id>
	<title>Re:Worrisome Potential Precedent</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1246730400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RIAA keeps their litigation against sympathetic defendants quiet and trumpets their successes against the more unsavory members of society. They have to - it's all a giant PR game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA keeps their litigation against sympathetic defendants quiet and trumpets their successes against the more unsavory members of society .
They have to - it 's all a giant PR game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA keeps their litigation against sympathetic defendants quiet and trumpets their successes against the more unsavory members of society.
They have to - it's all a giant PR game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580225</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246723500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's the whole point.  The damages are meant to be a deterrent against future abuses.  The RIAA is sticking her head on a pike as a warning to others.</p></div><p>Punitive damages can only be awarded in effort to deter the <i>defendant</i> from committing the same infringement again.  It is expressly forbidden to make an example of a defendant by awarding a grossly high settlement for the purpose of making others think twice before doing the same thing.  It is also expressly forbidden to award higher damages for acts that were not included in the trial.  For example, in this case, there were 24 files in question.  It's possible the jury said "I'm sure there were a lot more" and award damages with that in mind.  They can't do that.</p><p>If either of those things occurred, the verdict is immediately nullified.  I'm sure they will be raised on appeal, but they will be hard to prove.  If you read the jury instructions on this case, it clearly explicates that they are to award damages ONLY for the files in question.  There was even a neat little worksheet to help them with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the whole point .
The damages are meant to be a deterrent against future abuses .
The RIAA is sticking her head on a pike as a warning to others.Punitive damages can only be awarded in effort to deter the defendant from committing the same infringement again .
It is expressly forbidden to make an example of a defendant by awarding a grossly high settlement for the purpose of making others think twice before doing the same thing .
It is also expressly forbidden to award higher damages for acts that were not included in the trial .
For example , in this case , there were 24 files in question .
It 's possible the jury said " I 'm sure there were a lot more " and award damages with that in mind .
They ca n't do that.If either of those things occurred , the verdict is immediately nullified .
I 'm sure they will be raised on appeal , but they will be hard to prove .
If you read the jury instructions on this case , it clearly explicates that they are to award damages ONLY for the files in question .
There was even a neat little worksheet to help them with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the whole point.
The damages are meant to be a deterrent against future abuses.
The RIAA is sticking her head on a pike as a warning to others.Punitive damages can only be awarded in effort to deter the defendant from committing the same infringement again.
It is expressly forbidden to make an example of a defendant by awarding a grossly high settlement for the purpose of making others think twice before doing the same thing.
It is also expressly forbidden to award higher damages for acts that were not included in the trial.
For example, in this case, there were 24 files in question.
It's possible the jury said "I'm sure there were a lot more" and award damages with that in mind.
They can't do that.If either of those things occurred, the verdict is immediately nullified.
I'm sure they will be raised on appeal, but they will be hard to prove.
If you read the jury instructions on this case, it clearly explicates that they are to award damages ONLY for the files in question.
There was even a neat little worksheet to help them with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582037</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246739760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>no downtime (infinite nines!)</p></div><p>What's wrong with 100\%?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>no downtime ( infinite nines !
) What 's wrong with 100 \ % ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no downtime (infinite nines!
)What's wrong with 100\%?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580575</id>
	<title>Re:Am I Alone?</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1246726620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I know I'm being all conspiracy-theory with this</p></div></blockquote><p>
These days, "conspiracy-theory" means "acknowledge that there is such a thing as long-term strategy."  It can also be synonymous with "acknowledge that large organizations always act to further their own interests."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'm being all conspiracy-theory with this These days , " conspiracy-theory " means " acknowledge that there is such a thing as long-term strategy .
" It can also be synonymous with " acknowledge that large organizations always act to further their own interests .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'm being all conspiracy-theory with this
These days, "conspiracy-theory" means "acknowledge that there is such a thing as long-term strategy.
"  It can also be synonymous with "acknowledge that large organizations always act to further their own interests.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580647</id>
	<title>Re:Exxon Valdez, Anybody</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246727220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because EXXON basically <em>IS</em> the government? (You know, revolving doors and such.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because EXXON basically IS the government ?
( You know , revolving doors and such .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because EXXON basically IS the government?
(You know, revolving doors and such.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580331</id>
	<title>Re:I hope she gets a second opinion</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1246724400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, indeed funny.<br> <br>But I think this was the plan all along, to determine what the actual realistic "damages" for this type of transgression is. Something perhaps in the "reasonable" range.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , indeed funny .
But I think this was the plan all along , to determine what the actual realistic " damages " for this type of transgression is .
Something perhaps in the " reasonable " range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, indeed funny.
But I think this was the plan all along, to determine what the actual realistic "damages" for this type of transgression is.
Something perhaps in the "reasonable" range.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581057</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>TheThiefMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246730580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but the people she shared <i>to</i> would share <i>too</i>, and that's <i>clearly</i> her fault. They would <i>never</i> have got the songs and shared them <i>without her</i>.</p><p>&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but the people she shared to would share too , and that 's clearly her fault .
They would never have got the songs and shared them without her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but the people she shared to would share too, and that's clearly her fault.
They would never have got the songs and shared them without her.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581719</id>
	<title>Re:Pay up thief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246735800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, Club Gitmo... doesn't sound too bad actually compared to a pmita US prison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , Club Gitmo... does n't sound too bad actually compared to a pmita US prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, Club Gitmo... doesn't sound too bad actually compared to a pmita US prison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28584509</id>
	<title>Who Gets the Money?</title>
	<author>GumphMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246729800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From my reading here it is clear there are two amounts concerned in the judgement:  compensatory damages and punitive damages.  The former is supposed to compensate the winner for losses, and clearly goes to them.  My question is, who gets the punitive damages?  The deterrent represented by these punitive damage awards is a parallel to the sentence or fine in a criminal case, both of which are collected by the State on behalf of society.  Is that the case in these civil litigations in the US, or does the winner claim that as well?</htmltext>
<tokenext>From my reading here it is clear there are two amounts concerned in the judgement : compensatory damages and punitive damages .
The former is supposed to compensate the winner for losses , and clearly goes to them .
My question is , who gets the punitive damages ?
The deterrent represented by these punitive damage awards is a parallel to the sentence or fine in a criminal case , both of which are collected by the State on behalf of society .
Is that the case in these civil litigations in the US , or does the winner claim that as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my reading here it is clear there are two amounts concerned in the judgement:  compensatory damages and punitive damages.
The former is supposed to compensate the winner for losses, and clearly goes to them.
My question is, who gets the punitive damages?
The deterrent represented by these punitive damage awards is a parallel to the sentence or fine in a criminal case, both of which are collected by the State on behalf of society.
Is that the case in these civil litigations in the US, or does the winner claim that as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580255</id>
	<title>Well DUH!</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1246723680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, who could not have seen this coming.</p><p>This verdict had to have been the RIAA's worst nightmare.  They had to know, as they left the courthouse that they had just snatched ultimate defeat from the jaws of temporal victory.</p><p>NOW it all comes into play again, out from under easily impressed small town judges and professionally packed juries.</p><p>The entire investigative tactic, the improper application of laws, (not to mention that little phrase containing the words "Cruel or Unusual Punishment") comes under high level review.</p><p>They can't have wanted this.  They would have been happy with 100K verdict.  This is their worst nightmare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , who could not have seen this coming.This verdict had to have been the RIAA 's worst nightmare .
They had to know , as they left the courthouse that they had just snatched ultimate defeat from the jaws of temporal victory.NOW it all comes into play again , out from under easily impressed small town judges and professionally packed juries.The entire investigative tactic , the improper application of laws , ( not to mention that little phrase containing the words " Cruel or Unusual Punishment " ) comes under high level review.They ca n't have wanted this .
They would have been happy with 100K verdict .
This is their worst nightmare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, who could not have seen this coming.This verdict had to have been the RIAA's worst nightmare.
They had to know, as they left the courthouse that they had just snatched ultimate defeat from the jaws of temporal victory.NOW it all comes into play again, out from under easily impressed small town judges and professionally packed juries.The entire investigative tactic, the improper application of laws, (not to mention that little phrase containing the words "Cruel or Unusual Punishment") comes under high level review.They can't have wanted this.
They would have been happy with 100K verdict.
This is their worst nightmare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580165</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>sking</author>
	<datestamp>1246723020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seemed to me that a disproportionate damage award may have been the strategy all along, given the performance of her attorneys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seemed to me that a disproportionate damage award may have been the strategy all along , given the performance of her attorneys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seemed to me that a disproportionate damage award may have been the strategy all along, given the performance of her attorneys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581513</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246734000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh yeah, also note today is Independence Day in the U.S. Four of the companies that sued her are headquartered outside the U.S. The one U.S. company has a CEO from Canada.</p></div><p>So... you're saying that only US-based companies actually have any rights in the USA, that suits against US citizens can only be brought by US-based companies, and that if a foreign-based company feels it's been wronged by a US citizen, the only thing they're entitled to is a "sucks to be you"?</p><p>You've got a good point otherwise, but this particular bit of (literal) xenophobia didn't exactly increase your cred.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah , also note today is Independence Day in the U.S. Four of the companies that sued her are headquartered outside the U.S. The one U.S. company has a CEO from Canada.So... you 're saying that only US-based companies actually have any rights in the USA , that suits against US citizens can only be brought by US-based companies , and that if a foreign-based company feels it 's been wronged by a US citizen , the only thing they 're entitled to is a " sucks to be you " ? You 've got a good point otherwise , but this particular bit of ( literal ) xenophobia did n't exactly increase your cred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah, also note today is Independence Day in the U.S. Four of the companies that sued her are headquartered outside the U.S. The one U.S. company has a CEO from Canada.So... you're saying that only US-based companies actually have any rights in the USA, that suits against US citizens can only be brought by US-based companies, and that if a foreign-based company feels it's been wronged by a US citizen, the only thing they're entitled to is a "sucks to be you"?You've got a good point otherwise, but this particular bit of (literal) xenophobia didn't exactly increase your cred.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581617</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1246734780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YouTube.  It is the model for the future and the model that is being embraced by young people.</p><p>Sure, WALL-E was a $200 million dollar movie.  Unfortunately, some folks think that a similar quantity of entertainment (per unit hour, I suppose) can be obtained on YouTube (or Shufuni...) at significantly less cost.  Which then means lower or zero cost to the entertainment consumer.  At least this certainly seems to be where things are going.</p><p>I suspect that we are going to have to let them try this approach.  It is unfortunate, but I believe that most "entertainers" of one sort or another have just about had their fill and are seriously questioning if it is all worth it.  I'll bet that more than few folks in the big-name music and movie production houses are also wondering why they are bothering.</p><p>Piracy is reaching out it tenacles everywhere and given the structure of the Internet today it is pretty much impossible to stop.  Most people under 30 have enough knowledge to understand how to download pirated materials even if they don't know how to rip a DVD or CD themselves.  They also have the attitude that if it is on the Internet, it is free.  So why pay money for something that is free.  Besides, they are already paying plenty for high speed Internet access and doesn't all this come with it?</p><p>I think we are going to have to see if YouTube and amature production can replace professionals.  Sure, I think I know the answer already, as do most people if they stop to think about it.  But it is all incredibly seductive, this idea of getting everything they want for free.  It won't work, but I don't see any real alternative on the horizon.  I do know that until the value of professional media is displayed to people and their nose rubbed in it really well people will not be willing to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YouTube .
It is the model for the future and the model that is being embraced by young people.Sure , WALL-E was a $ 200 million dollar movie .
Unfortunately , some folks think that a similar quantity of entertainment ( per unit hour , I suppose ) can be obtained on YouTube ( or Shufuni... ) at significantly less cost .
Which then means lower or zero cost to the entertainment consumer .
At least this certainly seems to be where things are going.I suspect that we are going to have to let them try this approach .
It is unfortunate , but I believe that most " entertainers " of one sort or another have just about had their fill and are seriously questioning if it is all worth it .
I 'll bet that more than few folks in the big-name music and movie production houses are also wondering why they are bothering.Piracy is reaching out it tenacles everywhere and given the structure of the Internet today it is pretty much impossible to stop .
Most people under 30 have enough knowledge to understand how to download pirated materials even if they do n't know how to rip a DVD or CD themselves .
They also have the attitude that if it is on the Internet , it is free .
So why pay money for something that is free .
Besides , they are already paying plenty for high speed Internet access and does n't all this come with it ? I think we are going to have to see if YouTube and amature production can replace professionals .
Sure , I think I know the answer already , as do most people if they stop to think about it .
But it is all incredibly seductive , this idea of getting everything they want for free .
It wo n't work , but I do n't see any real alternative on the horizon .
I do know that until the value of professional media is displayed to people and their nose rubbed in it really well people will not be willing to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YouTube.
It is the model for the future and the model that is being embraced by young people.Sure, WALL-E was a $200 million dollar movie.
Unfortunately, some folks think that a similar quantity of entertainment (per unit hour, I suppose) can be obtained on YouTube (or Shufuni...) at significantly less cost.
Which then means lower or zero cost to the entertainment consumer.
At least this certainly seems to be where things are going.I suspect that we are going to have to let them try this approach.
It is unfortunate, but I believe that most "entertainers" of one sort or another have just about had their fill and are seriously questioning if it is all worth it.
I'll bet that more than few folks in the big-name music and movie production houses are also wondering why they are bothering.Piracy is reaching out it tenacles everywhere and given the structure of the Internet today it is pretty much impossible to stop.
Most people under 30 have enough knowledge to understand how to download pirated materials even if they don't know how to rip a DVD or CD themselves.
They also have the attitude that if it is on the Internet, it is free.
So why pay money for something that is free.
Besides, they are already paying plenty for high speed Internet access and doesn't all this come with it?I think we are going to have to see if YouTube and amature production can replace professionals.
Sure, I think I know the answer already, as do most people if they stop to think about it.
But it is all incredibly seductive, this idea of getting everything they want for free.
It won't work, but I don't see any real alternative on the horizon.
I do know that until the value of professional media is displayed to people and their nose rubbed in it really well people will not be willing to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580969</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246729860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, it doesn't make any sense.<br><br>If I go to a CD store and I steal 2-3 CDs, if they catch me, do I have to pay 2M $?<br><br>The punishment can't be bigger then the crime, we stopped to cut hands a long time ago for a reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , it does n't make any sense.If I go to a CD store and I steal 2-3 CDs , if they catch me , do I have to pay 2M $ ? The punishment ca n't be bigger then the crime , we stopped to cut hands a long time ago for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, it doesn't make any sense.If I go to a CD store and I steal 2-3 CDs, if they catch me, do I have to pay 2M $?The punishment can't be bigger then the crime, we stopped to cut hands a long time ago for a reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28591065</id>
	<title>Actually they have to prove damages</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1246816800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when she downloads a song in MP3 format, she is not stealing it from the RIAA so that they don't have a copy of it anymore, she is making a copy of an existing MP3 format. If the RIAA proves that she downloaded the song without paying for it, charge her $1 per song which was the going rate back in 2004. I fail to see how she did $1.92 Million in damages unless she downloaded 1.92 million songs.</p><p>I remember when they busted Kevin Mitnick, they tried to charge him for the cost of developing the software he stole, his lawyers claim they couldn't charge him for the entire cost of developing the software as he only stole a copy of it and did not delete the original from the source. I forgot how Mitnick got out of that one, but they tried to make an example out of him by charging the full cost of developing the software he downloaded, instead of the actual cost of buying a license of said software.</p><p>Let me put it this way, it is more like stealing a $1 pair of sun glasses from a store, you don't charge the shoplifter for the full price of developing the pair of sunglasses, but the actual price the sunglasses sold for. But it isn't even stealing sun glasses it is more like taking a picture of said sun glasses in the store and then sharing that picture with random strangers on the Internet. In fact this is more like the 1970's and 1980's when people bought an LP and then copied it to a cassette tape for their friends to listen to or recorded songs off FM Radio stations to Cassette tapes and shared them with friends. It is not the original LP they are stealing, but a copy of it or a copy of the recording of the song. This is legally no different than hearing the song on an FM Radio station for free, except she has control over what song plays and for how long. Will the RIAA go after people who listen to FM Radio songs next, or stop libraries from carrying Audio CDs that can be checked out for free, or the Internet Radio programs that play a random MP3 file as well? How can you justify a $1.92M charge, and that much damage was done? The answer is you cannot, because you don't know if the copy of the songs lead anyone to actually buy a legit version of the song after hearing the pirated version and liked it enough to buy a legal copy and other things by the singer or band who made the song they like. In that case a pirated copy of a song is no different than hearing the same song on an FM Radio for free because the FM Radio is sending out a copy of the song to every FM Radio tuned in to that station. This woman did the same thing an FM Radio station would do, beam up copies of the recorded song for free. You'll have to prove that she charged for each song in order to prove piracy and loss of sales, or else it ends up the same legal status as an FM Radio station or Internet Radio Station, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when she downloads a song in MP3 format , she is not stealing it from the RIAA so that they do n't have a copy of it anymore , she is making a copy of an existing MP3 format .
If the RIAA proves that she downloaded the song without paying for it , charge her $ 1 per song which was the going rate back in 2004 .
I fail to see how she did $ 1.92 Million in damages unless she downloaded 1.92 million songs.I remember when they busted Kevin Mitnick , they tried to charge him for the cost of developing the software he stole , his lawyers claim they could n't charge him for the entire cost of developing the software as he only stole a copy of it and did not delete the original from the source .
I forgot how Mitnick got out of that one , but they tried to make an example out of him by charging the full cost of developing the software he downloaded , instead of the actual cost of buying a license of said software.Let me put it this way , it is more like stealing a $ 1 pair of sun glasses from a store , you do n't charge the shoplifter for the full price of developing the pair of sunglasses , but the actual price the sunglasses sold for .
But it is n't even stealing sun glasses it is more like taking a picture of said sun glasses in the store and then sharing that picture with random strangers on the Internet .
In fact this is more like the 1970 's and 1980 's when people bought an LP and then copied it to a cassette tape for their friends to listen to or recorded songs off FM Radio stations to Cassette tapes and shared them with friends .
It is not the original LP they are stealing , but a copy of it or a copy of the recording of the song .
This is legally no different than hearing the song on an FM Radio station for free , except she has control over what song plays and for how long .
Will the RIAA go after people who listen to FM Radio songs next , or stop libraries from carrying Audio CDs that can be checked out for free , or the Internet Radio programs that play a random MP3 file as well ?
How can you justify a $ 1.92M charge , and that much damage was done ?
The answer is you can not , because you do n't know if the copy of the songs lead anyone to actually buy a legit version of the song after hearing the pirated version and liked it enough to buy a legal copy and other things by the singer or band who made the song they like .
In that case a pirated copy of a song is no different than hearing the same song on an FM Radio for free because the FM Radio is sending out a copy of the song to every FM Radio tuned in to that station .
This woman did the same thing an FM Radio station would do , beam up copies of the recorded song for free .
You 'll have to prove that she charged for each song in order to prove piracy and loss of sales , or else it ends up the same legal status as an FM Radio station or Internet Radio Station , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when she downloads a song in MP3 format, she is not stealing it from the RIAA so that they don't have a copy of it anymore, she is making a copy of an existing MP3 format.
If the RIAA proves that she downloaded the song without paying for it, charge her $1 per song which was the going rate back in 2004.
I fail to see how she did $1.92 Million in damages unless she downloaded 1.92 million songs.I remember when they busted Kevin Mitnick, they tried to charge him for the cost of developing the software he stole, his lawyers claim they couldn't charge him for the entire cost of developing the software as he only stole a copy of it and did not delete the original from the source.
I forgot how Mitnick got out of that one, but they tried to make an example out of him by charging the full cost of developing the software he downloaded, instead of the actual cost of buying a license of said software.Let me put it this way, it is more like stealing a $1 pair of sun glasses from a store, you don't charge the shoplifter for the full price of developing the pair of sunglasses, but the actual price the sunglasses sold for.
But it isn't even stealing sun glasses it is more like taking a picture of said sun glasses in the store and then sharing that picture with random strangers on the Internet.
In fact this is more like the 1970's and 1980's when people bought an LP and then copied it to a cassette tape for their friends to listen to or recorded songs off FM Radio stations to Cassette tapes and shared them with friends.
It is not the original LP they are stealing, but a copy of it or a copy of the recording of the song.
This is legally no different than hearing the song on an FM Radio station for free, except she has control over what song plays and for how long.
Will the RIAA go after people who listen to FM Radio songs next, or stop libraries from carrying Audio CDs that can be checked out for free, or the Internet Radio programs that play a random MP3 file as well?
How can you justify a $1.92M charge, and that much damage was done?
The answer is you cannot, because you don't know if the copy of the songs lead anyone to actually buy a legit version of the song after hearing the pirated version and liked it enough to buy a legal copy and other things by the singer or band who made the song they like.
In that case a pirated copy of a song is no different than hearing the same song on an FM Radio for free because the FM Radio is sending out a copy of the song to every FM Radio tuned in to that station.
This woman did the same thing an FM Radio station would do, beam up copies of the recorded song for free.
You'll have to prove that she charged for each song in order to prove piracy and loss of sales, or else it ends up the same legal status as an FM Radio station or Internet Radio Station, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582993</id>
	<title>Re:Pay up thief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246706940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was originally going to mod you +1 Funny, but then I realised; there are people in the world (namely the RIAA) who genuinely, honestly believe that. It's kinda like modding a holocaust joke +1 Funny, then you realise it's posted by a neo-nazi...</p><p>From <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/movie-pirates-funding-terrorists-20090627-d0gm.html?page=-1" title="smh.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.smh.com.au/national/movie-pirates-funding-terrorists-20090627-d0gm.html?page=-1</a> [smh.com.au]</p><p>"It has been recognised by governments &#226;&#166; that there is a link between movie piracy and terrorist funding."</p><p>From <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028\_3-5722835.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028\_3-5722835.html</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>"Some associates of terrorist groups may be involved in IPR crime," Stedman said. "During the course of our investigations, we have encountered suspects who have shown great affinity for Hezbollah and its leadership."</p><p>There was a big Slashdot thread about it a while back... <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/08/140216" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/08/140216</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>I genuinely believe there are some people in this world who believe that downloading a torrent of a movie that's been out for a year or more is akin to terrorism and should be punished accordingly. Given that the people who persue this woman (who, by the way, is obviously guilty) believe that she should spend the rest of her life as a debt-slave confims this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was originally going to mod you + 1 Funny , but then I realised ; there are people in the world ( namely the RIAA ) who genuinely , honestly believe that .
It 's kinda like modding a holocaust joke + 1 Funny , then you realise it 's posted by a neo-nazi...From http : //www.smh.com.au/national/movie-pirates-funding-terrorists-20090627-d0gm.html ? page = -1 [ smh.com.au ] " It has been recognised by governments     that there is a link between movie piracy and terrorist funding .
" From http : //news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028 \ _3-5722835.html [ cnet.com ] " Some associates of terrorist groups may be involved in IPR crime , " Stedman said .
" During the course of our investigations , we have encountered suspects who have shown great affinity for Hezbollah and its leadership .
" There was a big Slashdot thread about it a while back... http : //news.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/03/08/140216 [ slashdot.org ] I genuinely believe there are some people in this world who believe that downloading a torrent of a movie that 's been out for a year or more is akin to terrorism and should be punished accordingly .
Given that the people who persue this woman ( who , by the way , is obviously guilty ) believe that she should spend the rest of her life as a debt-slave confims this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was originally going to mod you +1 Funny, but then I realised; there are people in the world (namely the RIAA) who genuinely, honestly believe that.
It's kinda like modding a holocaust joke +1 Funny, then you realise it's posted by a neo-nazi...From http://www.smh.com.au/national/movie-pirates-funding-terrorists-20090627-d0gm.html?page=-1 [smh.com.au]"It has been recognised by governments â¦ that there is a link between movie piracy and terrorist funding.
"From http://news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028\_3-5722835.html [cnet.com]"Some associates of terrorist groups may be involved in IPR crime," Stedman said.
"During the course of our investigations, we have encountered suspects who have shown great affinity for Hezbollah and its leadership.
"There was a big Slashdot thread about it a while back... http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/08/140216 [slashdot.org]I genuinely believe there are some people in this world who believe that downloading a torrent of a movie that's been out for a year or more is akin to terrorism and should be punished accordingly.
Given that the people who persue this woman (who, by the way, is obviously guilty) believe that she should spend the rest of her life as a debt-slave confims this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580935</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246729680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Making an example of one particular offender isn't the way the law is supposed to work.</i> </p><p>It's the way the law always works.</p><p> The lesson never sinks in the first tine around.</p><p>The appellate court can reduce the award without ever reaching the constitutional issues that seem so enticing to the geek.</p><p>That ends the case and leaves Thomas up the creek without a paddle.</p><p>There is nothing more dangerous to a defendant than the lawyer who wants to make law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making an example of one particular offender is n't the way the law is supposed to work .
It 's the way the law always works .
The lesson never sinks in the first tine around.The appellate court can reduce the award without ever reaching the constitutional issues that seem so enticing to the geek.That ends the case and leaves Thomas up the creek without a paddle.There is nothing more dangerous to a defendant than the lawyer who wants to make law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making an example of one particular offender isn't the way the law is supposed to work.
It's the way the law always works.
The lesson never sinks in the first tine around.The appellate court can reduce the award without ever reaching the constitutional issues that seem so enticing to the geek.That ends the case and leaves Thomas up the creek without a paddle.There is nothing more dangerous to a defendant than the lawyer who wants to make law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107</id>
	<title>Exxon Valdez, Anybody</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246722480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does Jammie Thomas stack up against the EXXON Valdez case?  EXXON got its punitive damages reduced.  Why won't the same arguments work for Ms. Thomas?  Any lawyers with opinions out there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does Jammie Thomas stack up against the EXXON Valdez case ?
EXXON got its punitive damages reduced .
Why wo n't the same arguments work for Ms. Thomas ? Any lawyers with opinions out there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does Jammie Thomas stack up against the EXXON Valdez case?
EXXON got its punitive damages reduced.
Why won't the same arguments work for Ms. Thomas?  Any lawyers with opinions out there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580451</id>
	<title>Re:Exxon Valdez, Anybody</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1246725780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we say bad analogy? I see no parallel between those two cases except that Exxon and Thomas are both being defendants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we say bad analogy ?
I see no parallel between those two cases except that Exxon and Thomas are both being defendants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we say bad analogy?
I see no parallel between those two cases except that Exxon and Thomas are both being defendants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581275</id>
	<title>Re:not necessarily disproportionate</title>
	<author>ozydingo</author>
	<datestamp>1246732200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always appreciate a good devil's advocate argument.  But you don't have to work through any math to realize that $1.92 million is a ludicrous figure for this small number of non-commercial, personal acts of infringement.  At her salary, it's more money than she'll make in a lifetime (ok, fine, I worked through some math there, so sue me).  Blindly using these same formulas one would conclude that amount approaching and exceeding several billion in damages would be justified for common cases of infringement when an individual has been sharing hundreds or thousands of songs.  If you're looking at this mathematically, this is the point where you step back and look for a sign error somewhere, because you know the result can't be correct.<br> <br>

And regarding your match analogy, IANAL either, but I think that yes, damages should be reduced if 100 others were involved.  Why are you being held fully responsible for damages for which the responsibility demonstrably falls in the hands of others?  Can your neighbor, after successfully suing you, go on to sue someone else for the same damages, thereby being allowed to receive 100 times the amount than if you alone had caused the damages?  Yes, shared responsibility makes the logistics difficult, but avoiding difficulty is not an excuse for unjustly assigning the responsibility.<br> <br>

Furthermore, with multiplicative formulas such as yours, it can be <i>very</i> unreasonable to ballpark figures as you have.  Small errors in these numbers result in large errors in the result.  And when the difference is between a reasonable fine and ruining someone's life, surely you can agree that it is unacceptable to simply ballpark the figures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always appreciate a good devil 's advocate argument .
But you do n't have to work through any math to realize that $ 1.92 million is a ludicrous figure for this small number of non-commercial , personal acts of infringement .
At her salary , it 's more money than she 'll make in a lifetime ( ok , fine , I worked through some math there , so sue me ) .
Blindly using these same formulas one would conclude that amount approaching and exceeding several billion in damages would be justified for common cases of infringement when an individual has been sharing hundreds or thousands of songs .
If you 're looking at this mathematically , this is the point where you step back and look for a sign error somewhere , because you know the result ca n't be correct .
And regarding your match analogy , IANAL either , but I think that yes , damages should be reduced if 100 others were involved .
Why are you being held fully responsible for damages for which the responsibility demonstrably falls in the hands of others ?
Can your neighbor , after successfully suing you , go on to sue someone else for the same damages , thereby being allowed to receive 100 times the amount than if you alone had caused the damages ?
Yes , shared responsibility makes the logistics difficult , but avoiding difficulty is not an excuse for unjustly assigning the responsibility .
Furthermore , with multiplicative formulas such as yours , it can be very unreasonable to ballpark figures as you have .
Small errors in these numbers result in large errors in the result .
And when the difference is between a reasonable fine and ruining someone 's life , surely you can agree that it is unacceptable to simply ballpark the figures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always appreciate a good devil's advocate argument.
But you don't have to work through any math to realize that $1.92 million is a ludicrous figure for this small number of non-commercial, personal acts of infringement.
At her salary, it's more money than she'll make in a lifetime (ok, fine, I worked through some math there, so sue me).
Blindly using these same formulas one would conclude that amount approaching and exceeding several billion in damages would be justified for common cases of infringement when an individual has been sharing hundreds or thousands of songs.
If you're looking at this mathematically, this is the point where you step back and look for a sign error somewhere, because you know the result can't be correct.
And regarding your match analogy, IANAL either, but I think that yes, damages should be reduced if 100 others were involved.
Why are you being held fully responsible for damages for which the responsibility demonstrably falls in the hands of others?
Can your neighbor, after successfully suing you, go on to sue someone else for the same damages, thereby being allowed to receive 100 times the amount than if you alone had caused the damages?
Yes, shared responsibility makes the logistics difficult, but avoiding difficulty is not an excuse for unjustly assigning the responsibility.
Furthermore, with multiplicative formulas such as yours, it can be very unreasonable to ballpark figures as you have.
Small errors in these numbers result in large errors in the result.
And when the difference is between a reasonable fine and ruining someone's life, surely you can agree that it is unacceptable to simply ballpark the figures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582641</id>
	<title>You know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246702800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's quite a bit of readers here on Slashdot with a deep hatred for the RIAA.  Makes you wonder what would happen if we all paid NYCL a few bucks each so he could dedicate his skills on a fulltime basis for Mrs. Thomas (or other defendants)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's quite a bit of readers here on Slashdot with a deep hatred for the RIAA .
Makes you wonder what would happen if we all paid NYCL a few bucks each so he could dedicate his skills on a fulltime basis for Mrs. Thomas ( or other defendants ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's quite a bit of readers here on Slashdot with a deep hatred for the RIAA.
Makes you wonder what would happen if we all paid NYCL a few bucks each so he could dedicate his skills on a fulltime basis for Mrs. Thomas (or other defendants)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581129</id>
	<title>Re:Exxon Valdez, Anybody</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246731060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> How does Jammie Thomas stack up against the EXXON Valdez case?</p></div><p>If Exxon had been offered a chance to settle for $5000 at the start, they would have taken it.</p><p>if Exxon had been offered a chance to settle for $5000 after their first court loss, they would have taken it.</p><p>Hence, you can't really compare Exxon to Thomas, as Exxon is not stupid.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>EXXON got its punitive damages reduced.</p></div><p>If Thomas gets lucky, and the statutory damages are reduced from $80k per song to the statutory minimum of $750 per song, it will still come out to more than the RIAA has repeatedly offered to let her settle for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does Jammie Thomas stack up against the EXXON Valdez case ? If Exxon had been offered a chance to settle for $ 5000 at the start , they would have taken it.if Exxon had been offered a chance to settle for $ 5000 after their first court loss , they would have taken it.Hence , you ca n't really compare Exxon to Thomas , as Exxon is not stupid.EXXON got its punitive damages reduced.If Thomas gets lucky , and the statutory damages are reduced from $ 80k per song to the statutory minimum of $ 750 per song , it will still come out to more than the RIAA has repeatedly offered to let her settle for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How does Jammie Thomas stack up against the EXXON Valdez case?If Exxon had been offered a chance to settle for $5000 at the start, they would have taken it.if Exxon had been offered a chance to settle for $5000 after their first court loss, they would have taken it.Hence, you can't really compare Exxon to Thomas, as Exxon is not stupid.EXXON got its punitive damages reduced.If Thomas gets lucky, and the statutory damages are reduced from $80k per song to the statutory minimum of $750 per song, it will still come out to more than the RIAA has repeatedly offered to let her settle for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582613</id>
	<title>Re:Worrisome Potential Precedent</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1246702560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Larry Flynt "Im the worst and if I can get justice, anyone can" train of thought does have its merits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Larry Flynt " Im the worst and if I can get justice , anyone can " train of thought does have its merits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Larry Flynt "Im the worst and if I can get justice, anyone can" train of thought does have its merits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582959</id>
	<title>how absurd</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1246706640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She wants to get it appealed to something that wont bankrupt her?  $100 ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She wants to get it appealed to something that wont bankrupt her ?
$ 100 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She wants to get it appealed to something that wont bankrupt her?
$100 ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580183</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246723080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which her lawyers believe is unconstitutional, hence the appeal. Making an example of one particular offender isn't the way the law is supposed to work. You transgress, you are punished appropriately. The problem is that the law, written in a different age, and with different parameters in mind, should not be applied in this fashion. Unfortunately, in this case, the defendant does not have the financial means to set this straight. The lawyers, with deep pockets and a public name to make for themselves, do have the means. There is no doubt in my mind that they are not doing this altruistically, but they happen to be fighting what many believe to be a poorly written statute and in that sense are fighting for the common good at the same time. I've got no problem with their desire to gain reputation in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which her lawyers believe is unconstitutional , hence the appeal .
Making an example of one particular offender is n't the way the law is supposed to work .
You transgress , you are punished appropriately .
The problem is that the law , written in a different age , and with different parameters in mind , should not be applied in this fashion .
Unfortunately , in this case , the defendant does not have the financial means to set this straight .
The lawyers , with deep pockets and a public name to make for themselves , do have the means .
There is no doubt in my mind that they are not doing this altruistically , but they happen to be fighting what many believe to be a poorly written statute and in that sense are fighting for the common good at the same time .
I 've got no problem with their desire to gain reputation in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which her lawyers believe is unconstitutional, hence the appeal.
Making an example of one particular offender isn't the way the law is supposed to work.
You transgress, you are punished appropriately.
The problem is that the law, written in a different age, and with different parameters in mind, should not be applied in this fashion.
Unfortunately, in this case, the defendant does not have the financial means to set this straight.
The lawyers, with deep pockets and a public name to make for themselves, do have the means.
There is no doubt in my mind that they are not doing this altruistically, but they happen to be fighting what many believe to be a poorly written statute and in that sense are fighting for the common good at the same time.
I've got no problem with their desire to gain reputation in the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580435</id>
	<title>Re:Exxon Valdez, Anybody</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they've actually paid out anything yet apart from the cost of the cleanup</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but I do n't think they 've actually paid out anything yet apart from the cost of the cleanup</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they've actually paid out anything yet apart from the cost of the cleanup</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580595</id>
	<title>Re:Pay up thief</title>
	<author>The Outlander</author>
	<datestamp>1246726800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to suggest the death penalty but your suggestion of life in Guantanamo Bay seems a lot worse, with the death penalty at least she will be judged sometime soon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to suggest the death penalty but your suggestion of life in Guantanamo Bay seems a lot worse , with the death penalty at least she will be judged sometime soon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to suggest the death penalty but your suggestion of life in Guantanamo Bay seems a lot worse, with the death penalty at least she will be judged sometime soon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581231</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1246731960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the thing, If Itunes is offering the song for $1.00, then it's safe to say that their distribution license is under $1.00 a copy. The Itunes comparison is still valid unless it's fair game to have licensing fees specifically higher then your getting in real life just in case you have to take an infringement case to court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the thing , If Itunes is offering the song for $ 1.00 , then it 's safe to say that their distribution license is under $ 1.00 a copy .
The Itunes comparison is still valid unless it 's fair game to have licensing fees specifically higher then your getting in real life just in case you have to take an infringement case to court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the thing, If Itunes is offering the song for $1.00, then it's safe to say that their distribution license is under $1.00 a copy.
The Itunes comparison is still valid unless it's fair game to have licensing fees specifically higher then your getting in real life just in case you have to take an infringement case to court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580163</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>Nomen Publicus</author>
	<datestamp>1246722960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And when did deterrents ever stop murders or kids making copies of songs for their friends?</p><p>The big fines were intended to make professional copyright violations where some factory turns out hundreds or thousands of copies of fake product unprofitable.  Using the same law to beat up some random person is disproportionate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And when did deterrents ever stop murders or kids making copies of songs for their friends ? The big fines were intended to make professional copyright violations where some factory turns out hundreds or thousands of copies of fake product unprofitable .
Using the same law to beat up some random person is disproportionate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when did deterrents ever stop murders or kids making copies of songs for their friends?The big fines were intended to make professional copyright violations where some factory turns out hundreds or thousands of copies of fake product unprofitable.
Using the same law to beat up some random person is disproportionate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580221</id>
	<title>This is big news for us...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246723440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why don't we get Obama-mama involved?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why do n't we get Obama-mama involved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why don't we get Obama-mama involved?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580985</id>
	<title>Re:Am I Alone?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1246729980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's an extremely risky strategy that way and Jammie will now have to sit through even more court sessions. Unfortunately she doesn't strike me as the kind of altruistic person who would do that just to establish a precedent for others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an extremely risky strategy that way and Jammie will now have to sit through even more court sessions .
Unfortunately she does n't strike me as the kind of altruistic person who would do that just to establish a precedent for others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an extremely risky strategy that way and Jammie will now have to sit through even more court sessions.
Unfortunately she doesn't strike me as the kind of altruistic person who would do that just to establish a precedent for others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28585595</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>edittard</author>
	<datestamp>1246794780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The civil judgment isn't a fine.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not in name.  But it's so far from any sensible concept of damages (i.e repairing/replacing a loss) that in actuality, it is a fine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The civil judgment is n't a fine.Not in name .
But it 's so far from any sensible concept of damages ( i.e repairing/replacing a loss ) that in actuality , it is a fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The civil judgment isn't a fine.Not in name.
But it's so far from any sensible concept of damages (i.e repairing/replacing a loss) that in actuality, it is a fine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581249</id>
	<title>Re:not necessarily disproportionate</title>
	<author>TerranFury</author>
	<datestamp>1246732020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "correct" method would be to model the network, and fine her the difference between the number of songs shared by the network without her presence and that number with her involvement.  For an analogy, it would be the drop of current in a resistor network caused by the removal of a particular resistor.  This would represent that actual harm that she did.  Since this depends greatly on the topology of the network, this is of course not feasible without some assumptions.  The theory of random graphs (see e.g. work by Bollobas) might be helpful here.  Not that I'm really advocating such a mathematical approach to law.</p><p>The upshot of this is that, assuming a relatively highly-connected graph (high Fiedler number), her impact is probably very, very small.  For an extreme example, consider the difference in effective resistance between 100 1-ohm resistors in parallel and 99; it's tiny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " correct " method would be to model the network , and fine her the difference between the number of songs shared by the network without her presence and that number with her involvement .
For an analogy , it would be the drop of current in a resistor network caused by the removal of a particular resistor .
This would represent that actual harm that she did .
Since this depends greatly on the topology of the network , this is of course not feasible without some assumptions .
The theory of random graphs ( see e.g .
work by Bollobas ) might be helpful here .
Not that I 'm really advocating such a mathematical approach to law.The upshot of this is that , assuming a relatively highly-connected graph ( high Fiedler number ) , her impact is probably very , very small .
For an extreme example , consider the difference in effective resistance between 100 1-ohm resistors in parallel and 99 ; it 's tiny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "correct" method would be to model the network, and fine her the difference between the number of songs shared by the network without her presence and that number with her involvement.
For an analogy, it would be the drop of current in a resistor network caused by the removal of a particular resistor.
This would represent that actual harm that she did.
Since this depends greatly on the topology of the network, this is of course not feasible without some assumptions.
The theory of random graphs (see e.g.
work by Bollobas) might be helpful here.
Not that I'm really advocating such a mathematical approach to law.The upshot of this is that, assuming a relatively highly-connected graph (high Fiedler number), her impact is probably very, very small.
For an extreme example, consider the difference in effective resistance between 100 1-ohm resistors in parallel and 99; it's tiny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580571</id>
	<title>Re:not necessarily disproportionate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246726620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Average seed-ratio in a fileshering network is very close to 1.0<br>Even if we assume that all downloads equals a lost sale and use punitive damages of x10 there is no reason to why this case should not belong in small claims...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Average seed-ratio in a fileshering network is very close to 1.0Even if we assume that all downloads equals a lost sale and use punitive damages of x10 there is no reason to why this case should not belong in small claims.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Average seed-ratio in a fileshering network is very close to 1.0Even if we assume that all downloads equals a lost sale and use punitive damages of x10 there is no reason to why this case should not belong in small claims...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582047</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246739820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing the point. The idea is that even if you assume that everybody who downloaded <em>from</em> Jammie Thomas would have otherwise bought the song from iTunes (at 0.99$ per song), and you assume that she maxed out her bandwidth to the theoretical maximum for the last five years, you <em>still</em> don't get 1.92 million$ in damages.
</p><p>
The point that AC is making is not that the absolute maximum in damages should be based on the money lost from her downloading the song instead of buying it, but on the people she distributed to downloading instead of buying.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the point .
The idea is that even if you assume that everybody who downloaded from Jammie Thomas would have otherwise bought the song from iTunes ( at 0.99 $ per song ) , and you assume that she maxed out her bandwidth to the theoretical maximum for the last five years , you still do n't get 1.92 million $ in damages .
The point that AC is making is not that the absolute maximum in damages should be based on the money lost from her downloading the song instead of buying it , but on the people she distributed to downloading instead of buying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the point.
The idea is that even if you assume that everybody who downloaded from Jammie Thomas would have otherwise bought the song from iTunes (at 0.99$ per song), and you assume that she maxed out her bandwidth to the theoretical maximum for the last five years, you still don't get 1.92 million$ in damages.
The point that AC is making is not that the absolute maximum in damages should be based on the money lost from her downloading the song instead of buying it, but on the people she distributed to downloading instead of buying.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28583953</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>easyTree</author>
	<datestamp>1246720800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The RIAA is sticking her head on a pike as a warning to others.</p></div></blockquote><p>That warning is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker\_Cube" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">necker cube</a> [wikipedia.org]. At the moment, I'm seeing it from the perspective of "you need to work together to bring down the beast."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA is sticking her head on a pike as a warning to others.That warning is a necker cube [ wikipedia.org ] .
At the moment , I 'm seeing it from the perspective of " you need to work together to bring down the beast .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA is sticking her head on a pike as a warning to others.That warning is a necker cube [wikipedia.org].
At the moment, I'm seeing it from the perspective of "you need to work together to bring down the beast.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580383</id>
	<title>Am I Alone?</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1246724940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I alone in thinking this is exactly what the (pro bono) defense wanted? As I see it, wearing my tinfoil hat, they wanted an insane fine to be imposed so they could defeat it as unconstitutional. They would then establish the "right" fine appropriate with the offense (many opinions on this but most agree it should be in the hundreds of dollars, not thousands - these are songs that sell for 99 cents a piece, after all...). Once that's established, THEN they can fire up their class action suit which is where the real money is to be made. I know I'm being all conspiracy-theory with this but I think most of us agree that the defense didn't exactly do the best job possible and they are very intelligent people so I'm left wondering why - why didn't they do the best job possible? And the only answer I keep coming back to is because there's no money to be made winning \_THIS\_ case but there's truckloads to be made from winning the class action suit down the road.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I alone in thinking this is exactly what the ( pro bono ) defense wanted ?
As I see it , wearing my tinfoil hat , they wanted an insane fine to be imposed so they could defeat it as unconstitutional .
They would then establish the " right " fine appropriate with the offense ( many opinions on this but most agree it should be in the hundreds of dollars , not thousands - these are songs that sell for 99 cents a piece , after all... ) .
Once that 's established , THEN they can fire up their class action suit which is where the real money is to be made .
I know I 'm being all conspiracy-theory with this but I think most of us agree that the defense did n't exactly do the best job possible and they are very intelligent people so I 'm left wondering why - why did n't they do the best job possible ?
And the only answer I keep coming back to is because there 's no money to be made winning \ _THIS \ _ case but there 's truckloads to be made from winning the class action suit down the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I alone in thinking this is exactly what the (pro bono) defense wanted?
As I see it, wearing my tinfoil hat, they wanted an insane fine to be imposed so they could defeat it as unconstitutional.
They would then establish the "right" fine appropriate with the offense (many opinions on this but most agree it should be in the hundreds of dollars, not thousands - these are songs that sell for 99 cents a piece, after all...).
Once that's established, THEN they can fire up their class action suit which is where the real money is to be made.
I know I'm being all conspiracy-theory with this but I think most of us agree that the defense didn't exactly do the best job possible and they are very intelligent people so I'm left wondering why - why didn't they do the best job possible?
And the only answer I keep coming back to is because there's no money to be made winning \_THIS\_ case but there's truckloads to be made from winning the class action suit down the road.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580205</id>
	<title>Worrisome Potential Precedent</title>
	<author>resistant</author>
	<datestamp>1246723320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  I'm worried that the Supreme Court, should it eventually take this case, might find a way to justify these hugely exorbitant awards on technically narrow and nit-picky grounds that nonetheless are broad enough in reality to make fighting the RIAA essentially a hopeless cause financially for most people. The <a href="http://www.reason.com/news/show/32940.html" title="reason.com" rel="nofollow">Kelo decision</a> [reason.com] shows the kind of sloppy reasoning that can lead to appalling results. It surely doesn't help that Jammie appears to be guilty of deliberate file-sharing and tampering with evidence after the fact. One could wish heartily for a much more sympathetic defendant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm worried that the Supreme Court , should it eventually take this case , might find a way to justify these hugely exorbitant awards on technically narrow and nit-picky grounds that nonetheless are broad enough in reality to make fighting the RIAA essentially a hopeless cause financially for most people .
The Kelo decision [ reason.com ] shows the kind of sloppy reasoning that can lead to appalling results .
It surely does n't help that Jammie appears to be guilty of deliberate file-sharing and tampering with evidence after the fact .
One could wish heartily for a much more sympathetic defendant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  I'm worried that the Supreme Court, should it eventually take this case, might find a way to justify these hugely exorbitant awards on technically narrow and nit-picky grounds that nonetheless are broad enough in reality to make fighting the RIAA essentially a hopeless cause financially for most people.
The Kelo decision [reason.com] shows the kind of sloppy reasoning that can lead to appalling results.
It surely doesn't help that Jammie appears to be guilty of deliberate file-sharing and tampering with evidence after the fact.
One could wish heartily for a much more sympathetic defendant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631</id>
	<title>It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246727100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If one does the math it is easy to see it was impossible for her to have caused $1.92 million damage.  The offense occurred in 2004.  Back then a typical cable modem had an upload speed of 256kbps shared with the neighbors.  A typical song costs $0.99 on iTunes.  An average MP3 is about 3MB.  To upload 1.92 million songs would take 2,184.5 days (almost six years) with no protocol overhead, no downtime (infinite nines!), nobody using bandwidth to search for songs, no neighbors using any of the bandwidth, and no one in her house using the internet for anything but uploading files.  Kazaa had only existed for three years at the time.  She would have had to start before even Napster existed.

<br> <br>We already know the plantiffs were unsuccessful in several of their download attempts (this was brought up at trial).  So it seems many attempts to upload files failed which means it would have taken even longer to cause $1.92 million in damages.

<br> <br>Oh yeah, also note today is Independence Day in the U.S.  Four of the companies that sued her are headquartered outside the U.S.  The one U.S. company has a CEO from Canada.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If one does the math it is easy to see it was impossible for her to have caused $ 1.92 million damage .
The offense occurred in 2004 .
Back then a typical cable modem had an upload speed of 256kbps shared with the neighbors .
A typical song costs $ 0.99 on iTunes .
An average MP3 is about 3MB .
To upload 1.92 million songs would take 2,184.5 days ( almost six years ) with no protocol overhead , no downtime ( infinite nines !
) , nobody using bandwidth to search for songs , no neighbors using any of the bandwidth , and no one in her house using the internet for anything but uploading files .
Kazaa had only existed for three years at the time .
She would have had to start before even Napster existed .
We already know the plantiffs were unsuccessful in several of their download attempts ( this was brought up at trial ) .
So it seems many attempts to upload files failed which means it would have taken even longer to cause $ 1.92 million in damages .
Oh yeah , also note today is Independence Day in the U.S. Four of the companies that sued her are headquartered outside the U.S. The one U.S. company has a CEO from Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one does the math it is easy to see it was impossible for her to have caused $1.92 million damage.
The offense occurred in 2004.
Back then a typical cable modem had an upload speed of 256kbps shared with the neighbors.
A typical song costs $0.99 on iTunes.
An average MP3 is about 3MB.
To upload 1.92 million songs would take 2,184.5 days (almost six years) with no protocol overhead, no downtime (infinite nines!
), nobody using bandwidth to search for songs, no neighbors using any of the bandwidth, and no one in her house using the internet for anything but uploading files.
Kazaa had only existed for three years at the time.
She would have had to start before even Napster existed.
We already know the plantiffs were unsuccessful in several of their download attempts (this was brought up at trial).
So it seems many attempts to upload files failed which means it would have taken even longer to cause $1.92 million in damages.
Oh yeah, also note today is Independence Day in the U.S.  Four of the companies that sued her are headquartered outside the U.S.  The one U.S. company has a CEO from Canada.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580535</id>
	<title>Re:not necessarily disproportionate</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1246726380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The maximum penalty for willfully infringing on someone else's copyright is $150,000 per infringement. That would $150,000 x 24 = $3,600,000 as a maximum penalty.</p><p>The fact is that she was found to be infringing and was given a the minimum, then she challenged that and was found to be <b>willfully</b> infringing and given a median amount of $80,000 per infringement.</p><p>There is a pretty strong logical case that one should calculate damages according to the applicable laws and not by one person's (probably selfish) desires.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The maximum penalty for willfully infringing on someone else 's copyright is $ 150,000 per infringement .
That would $ 150,000 x 24 = $ 3,600,000 as a maximum penalty.The fact is that she was found to be infringing and was given a the minimum , then she challenged that and was found to be willfully infringing and given a median amount of $ 80,000 per infringement.There is a pretty strong logical case that one should calculate damages according to the applicable laws and not by one person 's ( probably selfish ) desires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The maximum penalty for willfully infringing on someone else's copyright is $150,000 per infringement.
That would $150,000 x 24 = $3,600,000 as a maximum penalty.The fact is that she was found to be infringing and was given a the minimum, then she challenged that and was found to be willfully infringing and given a median amount of $80,000 per infringement.There is a pretty strong logical case that one should calculate damages according to the applicable laws and not by one person's (probably selfish) desires.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28594155</id>
	<title>Re:Exxon Valdez, Anybody</title>
	<author>PeelBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1246893360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for the fact that Exxon wouldn't have been offered $5,000 to settle and if they felt like the settlement price was also unfair they wouldn't have settled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the fact that Exxon would n't have been offered $ 5,000 to settle and if they felt like the settlement price was also unfair they would n't have settled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the fact that Exxon wouldn't have been offered $5,000 to settle and if they felt like the settlement price was also unfair they wouldn't have settled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28583297</id>
	<title>Re:Exxon Valdez, Anybody</title>
	<author>LeperPuppet</author>
	<datestamp>1246711380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm hoping to see newer anti-piracy messages that reference the Exxon Valdez.

"You wouldn't leave a drunk captain in charge of an oil tanker"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping to see newer anti-piracy messages that reference the Exxon Valdez .
" You would n't leave a drunk captain in charge of an oil tanker "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping to see newer anti-piracy messages that reference the Exxon Valdez.
"You wouldn't leave a drunk captain in charge of an oil tanker"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580543</id>
	<title>Re:not necessarily disproportionate</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1246726380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actual harm should be related to actual revenue. It could be current revenue or it<br>could even be the maximum annual revenue that these works ever generated. One key<br>fact that seems to be glossed over here is that these are OLD works. Many of them<br>would have fallen into public domain on their own by now if the law had not been<br>recently changed to specifically favor Disney.</p><p>The RIAA likely does not see 80K in a year from the 20 year old Richard Marx song involved.</p><p>That clearly limits the likely possible damages here.</p><p>In general, a statutory damage award 50\% of the maximum probably should never<br>be applied to a copyrighted work that is 20+ years old.</p><p>After considering the issue further (based on this verdict) it seems that it<br>might be unjust even to subject a professional bootlegger to this verdict.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actual harm should be related to actual revenue .
It could be current revenue or itcould even be the maximum annual revenue that these works ever generated .
One keyfact that seems to be glossed over here is that these are OLD works .
Many of themwould have fallen into public domain on their own by now if the law had not beenrecently changed to specifically favor Disney.The RIAA likely does not see 80K in a year from the 20 year old Richard Marx song involved.That clearly limits the likely possible damages here.In general , a statutory damage award 50 \ % of the maximum probably should neverbe applied to a copyrighted work that is 20 + years old.After considering the issue further ( based on this verdict ) it seems that itmight be unjust even to subject a professional bootlegger to this verdict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actual harm should be related to actual revenue.
It could be current revenue or itcould even be the maximum annual revenue that these works ever generated.
One keyfact that seems to be glossed over here is that these are OLD works.
Many of themwould have fallen into public domain on their own by now if the law had not beenrecently changed to specifically favor Disney.The RIAA likely does not see 80K in a year from the 20 year old Richard Marx song involved.That clearly limits the likely possible damages here.In general, a statutory damage award 50\% of the maximum probably should neverbe applied to a copyrighted work that is 20+ years old.After considering the issue further (based on this verdict) it seems that itmight be unjust even to subject a professional bootlegger to this verdict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28583569</id>
	<title>Punitive damages as deterrent</title>
	<author>acb</author>
	<datestamp>1246714680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether or not it was possible for her to cause $2m damage to the recording industry is beside the point; the damages are meant to be punitive, to make an example of her and act as a deterrent. Psychologically, for a deterrent to be effective, the severity of the penalty must be exponentially proportional to the likelihood of getting away with it; as such, the sky's the limit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not it was possible for her to cause $ 2m damage to the recording industry is beside the point ; the damages are meant to be punitive , to make an example of her and act as a deterrent .
Psychologically , for a deterrent to be effective , the severity of the penalty must be exponentially proportional to the likelihood of getting away with it ; as such , the sky 's the limit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not it was possible for her to cause $2m damage to the recording industry is beside the point; the damages are meant to be punitive, to make an example of her and act as a deterrent.
Psychologically, for a deterrent to be effective, the severity of the penalty must be exponentially proportional to the likelihood of getting away with it; as such, the sky's the limit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580457</id>
	<title>Re:Well DUH!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, The RIAA will now pay the price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , The RIAA will now pay the price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, The RIAA will now pay the price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28583273</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1246711140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>there is no way to tell how many people downloaded those songs that she uploaded</p></div></blockquote><p>Anyhow, wouldn't those (hypothetical) downloaders be the ones to prosecute? It takes two to tango, it seems unfair to blame everything on the one person they are prosecuting.</p><p>If so much damage was caused by exponential downloading, let's see those downloaders.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is no way to tell how many people downloaded those songs that she uploadedAnyhow , would n't those ( hypothetical ) downloaders be the ones to prosecute ?
It takes two to tango , it seems unfair to blame everything on the one person they are prosecuting.If so much damage was caused by exponential downloading , let 's see those downloaders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is no way to tell how many people downloaded those songs that she uploadedAnyhow, wouldn't those (hypothetical) downloaders be the ones to prosecute?
It takes two to tango, it seems unfair to blame everything on the one person they are prosecuting.If so much damage was caused by exponential downloading, let's see those downloaders.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580639</id>
	<title>Re:Well DUH!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246727160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA knows it's time is coming.</p><p>$1,900,000 for a couple of songs? Any unbiased sane person can see that this verdict is completely .</p><p>This story should be located under the business section of every news source out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA knows it 's time is coming. $ 1,900,000 for a couple of songs ?
Any unbiased sane person can see that this verdict is completely .This story should be located under the business section of every news source out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA knows it's time is coming.$1,900,000 for a couple of songs?
Any unbiased sane person can see that this verdict is completely .This story should be located under the business section of every news source out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161</id>
	<title>Pay up thief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246722960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well she is clearly one of the biggest threats to this world. I think she's got off light. She should have had to pay infinity billion dollars and spend the rest of her life in Guantanamo Bay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well she is clearly one of the biggest threats to this world .
I think she 's got off light .
She should have had to pay infinity billion dollars and spend the rest of her life in Guantanamo Bay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well she is clearly one of the biggest threats to this world.
I think she's got off light.
She should have had to pay infinity billion dollars and spend the rest of her life in Guantanamo Bay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580569</id>
	<title>Re:Am I Alone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246726620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IAAL and I always marvel at the absolutely bizarre legal theories that tech people seem to have around here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IAAL and I always marvel at the absolutely bizarre legal theories that tech people seem to have around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IAAL and I always marvel at the absolutely bizarre legal theories that tech people seem to have around here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28584659</id>
	<title>Re:Exxon Valdez, Anybody</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1246732920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I see no parallel between those two cases except that Exxon and Thomas are both being defendants.</i> <br> <br>And that's enough or a parallel.  I'm not fully up, but I think the Supreme Court said that punitive damages should be capped at no more than three times actual damages.  That's simple, clear, and since there was no actual damage that can be demonstrated, should have punitive damage at 3x zero, for $0.  After all, they never addressed her having them illegally, but uploading them, and there is no proof that anyone actually got them from her other than people that already had permission.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see no parallel between those two cases except that Exxon and Thomas are both being defendants .
And that 's enough or a parallel .
I 'm not fully up , but I think the Supreme Court said that punitive damages should be capped at no more than three times actual damages .
That 's simple , clear , and since there was no actual damage that can be demonstrated , should have punitive damage at 3x zero , for $ 0 .
After all , they never addressed her having them illegally , but uploading them , and there is no proof that anyone actually got them from her other than people that already had permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see no parallel between those two cases except that Exxon and Thomas are both being defendants.
And that's enough or a parallel.
I'm not fully up, but I think the Supreme Court said that punitive damages should be capped at no more than three times actual damages.
That's simple, clear, and since there was no actual damage that can be demonstrated, should have punitive damage at 3x zero, for $0.
After all, they never addressed her having them illegally, but uploading them, and there is no proof that anyone actually got them from her other than people that already had permission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581547</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1246734360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The GP is not talking about that. He is talking about the (highly debatable) fact that every person whom she uploaded to gets the ability to listen to the song without buying it (presumably at the iTunes price). Therefore (once again this is highly debatable - if you pirate Photoshop that doesn't mean you're willing to shell out 700 bucks for it) the damages is equal to the purchase price * the number of people she uploaded to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The GP is not talking about that .
He is talking about the ( highly debatable ) fact that every person whom she uploaded to gets the ability to listen to the song without buying it ( presumably at the iTunes price ) .
Therefore ( once again this is highly debatable - if you pirate Photoshop that does n't mean you 're willing to shell out 700 bucks for it ) the damages is equal to the purchase price * the number of people she uploaded to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GP is not talking about that.
He is talking about the (highly debatable) fact that every person whom she uploaded to gets the ability to listen to the song without buying it (presumably at the iTunes price).
Therefore (once again this is highly debatable - if you pirate Photoshop that doesn't mean you're willing to shell out 700 bucks for it) the damages is equal to the purchase price * the number of people she uploaded to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580545</id>
	<title>Re:not necessarily disproportionate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246726440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, your logic has totally broken down.</p><p>Based on studies of consumer economics, L is demonstrably a staggeringly low number.  At most it's in the low single digit percents.  Seriously.  Look up some papers on the economic difference between 1 cent and free.</p><p>Your calculation for N is absurd.  You can't count downstream infringements.  If you do, than Jammie's own infringement was a downstream infringement.  To use your own analogy, it would be ok for the house owner to sue each person who ever threw a match into that bush for the entire value of his house.</p><p>Seriously, where do you get this from??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , your logic has totally broken down.Based on studies of consumer economics , L is demonstrably a staggeringly low number .
At most it 's in the low single digit percents .
Seriously. Look up some papers on the economic difference between 1 cent and free.Your calculation for N is absurd .
You ca n't count downstream infringements .
If you do , than Jammie 's own infringement was a downstream infringement .
To use your own analogy , it would be ok for the house owner to sue each person who ever threw a match into that bush for the entire value of his house.Seriously , where do you get this from ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, your logic has totally broken down.Based on studies of consumer economics, L is demonstrably a staggeringly low number.
At most it's in the low single digit percents.
Seriously.  Look up some papers on the economic difference between 1 cent and free.Your calculation for N is absurd.
You can't count downstream infringements.
If you do, than Jammie's own infringement was a downstream infringement.
To use your own analogy, it would be ok for the house owner to sue each person who ever threw a match into that bush for the entire value of his house.Seriously, where do you get this from?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581147</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>clarkkent09</author>
	<datestamp>1246731240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's all beside the point. The damages awarded were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory\_damages\_for\_copyright\_infringement" title="wikipedia.org">statutory damages</a> [wikipedia.org] as set by the law. It is impossible for the plaintiff to prove the actual damages because there is no way to tell how many people downloaded those songs that she uploaded so the law sets a default amount. On the first glance it seems that $80K per song is too high but then I don't know the technical argument for it.<br> <br>Tactically, I think she and her lawyers are making one mistake after another and she will eventually have to pay a lot more than she could have if she settled right away. Here is the part I don't understand: on one hand she is not "interested in discussing any deal that required her to admit guilt or pay any money" but on the other hand the main argument of the appeal is "that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm." Doesn't it mean that she is admitting that harm occurred and only challenging the amount? It seems like her main argument is at odds with her unwillingness to accept any guilt or settle for any amount.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all beside the point .
The damages awarded were statutory damages [ wikipedia.org ] as set by the law .
It is impossible for the plaintiff to prove the actual damages because there is no way to tell how many people downloaded those songs that she uploaded so the law sets a default amount .
On the first glance it seems that $ 80K per song is too high but then I do n't know the technical argument for it .
Tactically , I think she and her lawyers are making one mistake after another and she will eventually have to pay a lot more than she could have if she settled right away .
Here is the part I do n't understand : on one hand she is not " interested in discussing any deal that required her to admit guilt or pay any money " but on the other hand the main argument of the appeal is " that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm .
" Does n't it mean that she is admitting that harm occurred and only challenging the amount ?
It seems like her main argument is at odds with her unwillingness to accept any guilt or settle for any amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all beside the point.
The damages awarded were statutory damages [wikipedia.org] as set by the law.
It is impossible for the plaintiff to prove the actual damages because there is no way to tell how many people downloaded those songs that she uploaded so the law sets a default amount.
On the first glance it seems that $80K per song is too high but then I don't know the technical argument for it.
Tactically, I think she and her lawyers are making one mistake after another and she will eventually have to pay a lot more than she could have if she settled right away.
Here is the part I don't understand: on one hand she is not "interested in discussing any deal that required her to admit guilt or pay any money" but on the other hand the main argument of the appeal is "that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm.
" Doesn't it mean that she is admitting that harm occurred and only challenging the amount?
It seems like her main argument is at odds with her unwillingness to accept any guilt or settle for any amount.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581071</id>
	<title>Re:It was impossible to cause that much damage</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1246730640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If one does the math it is easy to see it was impossible for her to have caused $1.92 million damage. The offense occurred in 2004. Back then a typical cable modem had an upload speed of 256kbps shared with the neighbors. A typical song costs $0.99 on iTunes</p></div><p>Your first mistake is using the iTunes price. Last time I checked, if you get a song from iTunes, it does not include a license to make the song available for an arbitrary, untracked, number of uploads to other people. If you were to write to the rights holders for the songs involved and ask what it would cost to get a license for unrestricted, untracked, copying and redistribution, I am pretty sure they would ask for more than $1 per song.</p><p>This is why it is often expensive for movie producers to use popular songs in their soundtracks. Did you think they just went to the iTunes store, downloaded a copy for $1, and then used it in their movies, without paying more?</p><p>For movies, the licenses can be thousands of dollars per song. If she had to pay similar per song, and had to pay for all the songs she was sharing, not just the 24 that were brought up in trial, it would actually come in the ballpark of $1.92 million. However, that's not really relevant, and that brings is to your second mistake.</p><p>The $1.92 million is not meant to represent actual damages. Actual damages are very hard to prove in most copyright cases, and so the plaintiff can elect to take statutory damages, which are defined in the statute (hence the name). They are from $750 to $150000 dollars, with the jury deciding where they go. The jury went for something in the middle of that, per song, for the simple reason that she was not very good at lying to them. Juries do not like it when clearly guilty defendants tell a shifting tale of several badly told obvious lies, and that tends to push damages up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If one does the math it is easy to see it was impossible for her to have caused $ 1.92 million damage .
The offense occurred in 2004 .
Back then a typical cable modem had an upload speed of 256kbps shared with the neighbors .
A typical song costs $ 0.99 on iTunesYour first mistake is using the iTunes price .
Last time I checked , if you get a song from iTunes , it does not include a license to make the song available for an arbitrary , untracked , number of uploads to other people .
If you were to write to the rights holders for the songs involved and ask what it would cost to get a license for unrestricted , untracked , copying and redistribution , I am pretty sure they would ask for more than $ 1 per song.This is why it is often expensive for movie producers to use popular songs in their soundtracks .
Did you think they just went to the iTunes store , downloaded a copy for $ 1 , and then used it in their movies , without paying more ? For movies , the licenses can be thousands of dollars per song .
If she had to pay similar per song , and had to pay for all the songs she was sharing , not just the 24 that were brought up in trial , it would actually come in the ballpark of $ 1.92 million .
However , that 's not really relevant , and that brings is to your second mistake.The $ 1.92 million is not meant to represent actual damages .
Actual damages are very hard to prove in most copyright cases , and so the plaintiff can elect to take statutory damages , which are defined in the statute ( hence the name ) .
They are from $ 750 to $ 150000 dollars , with the jury deciding where they go .
The jury went for something in the middle of that , per song , for the simple reason that she was not very good at lying to them .
Juries do not like it when clearly guilty defendants tell a shifting tale of several badly told obvious lies , and that tends to push damages up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If one does the math it is easy to see it was impossible for her to have caused $1.92 million damage.
The offense occurred in 2004.
Back then a typical cable modem had an upload speed of 256kbps shared with the neighbors.
A typical song costs $0.99 on iTunesYour first mistake is using the iTunes price.
Last time I checked, if you get a song from iTunes, it does not include a license to make the song available for an arbitrary, untracked, number of uploads to other people.
If you were to write to the rights holders for the songs involved and ask what it would cost to get a license for unrestricted, untracked, copying and redistribution, I am pretty sure they would ask for more than $1 per song.This is why it is often expensive for movie producers to use popular songs in their soundtracks.
Did you think they just went to the iTunes store, downloaded a copy for $1, and then used it in their movies, without paying more?For movies, the licenses can be thousands of dollars per song.
If she had to pay similar per song, and had to pay for all the songs she was sharing, not just the 24 that were brought up in trial, it would actually come in the ballpark of $1.92 million.
However, that's not really relevant, and that brings is to your second mistake.The $1.92 million is not meant to represent actual damages.
Actual damages are very hard to prove in most copyright cases, and so the plaintiff can elect to take statutory damages, which are defined in the statute (hence the name).
They are from $750 to $150000 dollars, with the jury deciding where they go.
The jury went for something in the middle of that, per song, for the simple reason that she was not very good at lying to them.
Juries do not like it when clearly guilty defendants tell a shifting tale of several badly told obvious lies, and that tends to push damages up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28587653</id>
	<title>Re:Worrisome Potential Precedent</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1246823340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>justify these hugely exorbitant awards</p></div><p>I've pondered this:</p><p>If I were in the jury, I'd probably figure that she had done what she's accused of.</p><p>I'd also figure that the statutory damages, which I hear the plaintiff requested, are at least $750 per song.</p><p>That's $18000.  Or 18000 songs.  I'd have problems believing she actually did that much damage.  Recall, statutory damages are there to allow the jury to estimate damages when they're hard to compute, but should reflect actual damages.</p><p>So finding in favor of plaintiff is a dereliction of justice.  So is finding in favor of the defendant.</p><p>Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  What's the jury supposed to do, then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>justify these hugely exorbitant awardsI 've pondered this : If I were in the jury , I 'd probably figure that she had done what she 's accused of.I 'd also figure that the statutory damages , which I hear the plaintiff requested , are at least $ 750 per song.That 's $ 18000 .
Or 18000 songs .
I 'd have problems believing she actually did that much damage .
Recall , statutory damages are there to allow the jury to estimate damages when they 're hard to compute , but should reflect actual damages.So finding in favor of plaintiff is a dereliction of justice .
So is finding in favor of the defendant.Damned if you do , damned if you do n't .
What 's the jury supposed to do , then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>justify these hugely exorbitant awardsI've pondered this:If I were in the jury, I'd probably figure that she had done what she's accused of.I'd also figure that the statutory damages, which I hear the plaintiff requested, are at least $750 per song.That's $18000.
Or 18000 songs.
I'd have problems believing she actually did that much damage.
Recall, statutory damages are there to allow the jury to estimate damages when they're hard to compute, but should reflect actual damages.So finding in favor of plaintiff is a dereliction of justice.
So is finding in favor of the defendant.Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
What's the jury supposed to do, then?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580507</id>
	<title>Re:not necessarily disproportionate</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246726080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your 'logical' case that damages=24x$1xNxBxLxD rests on the premise that it is reasonable to hold a single person responsible for an arbitrary amount of distribution on the internet. This is nonsense.</p><p>If you really think it is reasonable, I suggest you start figuring out how to prove that it wasn't you who killed my dog. I mean, for all I know, it was you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your 'logical ' case that damages = 24x $ 1xNxBxLxD rests on the premise that it is reasonable to hold a single person responsible for an arbitrary amount of distribution on the internet .
This is nonsense.If you really think it is reasonable , I suggest you start figuring out how to prove that it was n't you who killed my dog .
I mean , for all I know , it was you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your 'logical' case that damages=24x$1xNxBxLxD rests on the premise that it is reasonable to hold a single person responsible for an arbitrary amount of distribution on the internet.
This is nonsense.If you really think it is reasonable, I suggest you start figuring out how to prove that it wasn't you who killed my dog.
I mean, for all I know, it was you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581495</id>
	<title>Re:Pay up thief</title>
	<author>DrScotsman</author>
	<datestamp>1246733880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>She should have had to pay infinity billion dollars...</p></div><p>That's the spirit toadwarrior! But I think a real number might be more effective.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>She should have had to pay infinity billion dollars...That 's the spirit toadwarrior !
But I think a real number might be more effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She should have had to pay infinity billion dollars...That's the spirit toadwarrior!
But I think a real number might be more effective.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411</id>
	<title>not necessarily disproportionate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Okay, this is going to be wildly unpopular on slashdot, but I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue that the damages are not necessarily disproportionate to the actual harm.
</p><p>
It's definitely not correct to calculate the actual harm like this: 24 songs, multiplied by a market price of $1 per track on iTunes, giving 24x$1= $24. She wasn't being sued for obtaining single copies of the 24 songs illegally for her own use, she was being sued for giving them to other people -- possibly a very large number of other people.
</p><p>
Another possibility would be to take 24x$1, and then multiply by the number of people who actually downloaded the specific copies of the songs that she made available. There are a couple of problems with this. One is that nobody has any data on how many people downloaded those specific copies. Maybe zero people downloaded them. Maybe 10 people downloaded a particular song, each of them copied that copy 10 times for 10 friends, and so on, so that conceivably there are millions of mp3 files of that song out there that are all descended from Jammie Thomas's original. We just don't know, because the copies don't carry a history that allows us to know how they spread. You could argue that other people may have bought CDs of the same songs, ripped them, and put them online; again, there was no data about this at trial. And in any case, it's kind of morally obtuse to say that what she did isn't really so bad, because lots of other people were doing it as well. If you want to argue that what she did wasn't blameworthy, then you need to do it on other grounds, e.g., US copyright laws are unjust; well, I agree that US copyright laws are unjust, but we're talking about a court case here, so that's irrelevant. Suppose I set fire to the trees behind my neighbor's house, and around the same time 100 other people are also lighting matches and throwing them into the same bushes. My neighbor's house burns down, and he sues me. IANAL, but I doubt that the court is going to reduce the damages they make me pay by a factor of 100, on the theory that there were 99 other people attempting to do the same thing.
</p><p>
So it seems to me there's a pretty strong logical case to be made that you should calculate the damages like this: 24x$1xNxBxLxD. N is the total number of people who downloaded the song (and, as argued above, not just the number who got a copy directly from the ones Thomas put up). B is a factor that takes into account that only a fraction of the blame is hers, but I argued above that setting B=1 is reasonable (or at least not so unreasonable that it's obviously unconstitutional). L is a factor that measures how much the industry really loses when songs of a certain market value are downloaded. The industry usually assumes L=1, i.e., that every illegal download equals one lost sale. We actually don't know what L is. It's possible that 75\% of downloaders would never have bought the song (e.g., they're 12-year-olds who have no money), in which case L=.25. It's even possible that L is negative (illegal downloads publicize and popularize the music, thereby driving legal sales). But these things are all impossible to determine, so I don't think it's completely crazy to say L=1, as a ballpark figure. (Again, the issue isn't whether it's exactly correct, the issue is whether it's so crazy that it gives a result that is obviously unconstitutionally disproportionate.) And finally D is the deterrent factor. When you sue someone for copyright violation, you're allowed to sue for more than the actual damages. As an example, if you write GPL'd software, in many cases the market value of the software is vanishingly small because you're intentionally giving it away for free; nevertheless if you satisfy certain technical requirements, you're allowed to sue for more than your actual damages, i.e., D can be much greater than one. (This is one reason that the GNU project encourages authors of GNU software to formally register a copyright, and sign over the copyrights to GNU. If you don't file a formal copyright re</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , this is going to be wildly unpopular on slashdot , but I 'm going to play devil 's advocate and argue that the damages are not necessarily disproportionate to the actual harm .
It 's definitely not correct to calculate the actual harm like this : 24 songs , multiplied by a market price of $ 1 per track on iTunes , giving 24x $ 1 = $ 24 .
She was n't being sued for obtaining single copies of the 24 songs illegally for her own use , she was being sued for giving them to other people -- possibly a very large number of other people .
Another possibility would be to take 24x $ 1 , and then multiply by the number of people who actually downloaded the specific copies of the songs that she made available .
There are a couple of problems with this .
One is that nobody has any data on how many people downloaded those specific copies .
Maybe zero people downloaded them .
Maybe 10 people downloaded a particular song , each of them copied that copy 10 times for 10 friends , and so on , so that conceivably there are millions of mp3 files of that song out there that are all descended from Jammie Thomas 's original .
We just do n't know , because the copies do n't carry a history that allows us to know how they spread .
You could argue that other people may have bought CDs of the same songs , ripped them , and put them online ; again , there was no data about this at trial .
And in any case , it 's kind of morally obtuse to say that what she did is n't really so bad , because lots of other people were doing it as well .
If you want to argue that what she did was n't blameworthy , then you need to do it on other grounds , e.g. , US copyright laws are unjust ; well , I agree that US copyright laws are unjust , but we 're talking about a court case here , so that 's irrelevant .
Suppose I set fire to the trees behind my neighbor 's house , and around the same time 100 other people are also lighting matches and throwing them into the same bushes .
My neighbor 's house burns down , and he sues me .
IANAL , but I doubt that the court is going to reduce the damages they make me pay by a factor of 100 , on the theory that there were 99 other people attempting to do the same thing .
So it seems to me there 's a pretty strong logical case to be made that you should calculate the damages like this : 24x $ 1xNxBxLxD .
N is the total number of people who downloaded the song ( and , as argued above , not just the number who got a copy directly from the ones Thomas put up ) .
B is a factor that takes into account that only a fraction of the blame is hers , but I argued above that setting B = 1 is reasonable ( or at least not so unreasonable that it 's obviously unconstitutional ) .
L is a factor that measures how much the industry really loses when songs of a certain market value are downloaded .
The industry usually assumes L = 1 , i.e. , that every illegal download equals one lost sale .
We actually do n't know what L is .
It 's possible that 75 \ % of downloaders would never have bought the song ( e.g. , they 're 12-year-olds who have no money ) , in which case L = .25 .
It 's even possible that L is negative ( illegal downloads publicize and popularize the music , thereby driving legal sales ) .
But these things are all impossible to determine , so I do n't think it 's completely crazy to say L = 1 , as a ballpark figure .
( Again , the issue is n't whether it 's exactly correct , the issue is whether it 's so crazy that it gives a result that is obviously unconstitutionally disproportionate .
) And finally D is the deterrent factor .
When you sue someone for copyright violation , you 're allowed to sue for more than the actual damages .
As an example , if you write GPL 'd software , in many cases the market value of the software is vanishingly small because you 're intentionally giving it away for free ; nevertheless if you satisfy certain technical requirements , you 're allowed to sue for more than your actual damages , i.e. , D can be much greater than one .
( This is one reason that the GNU project encourages authors of GNU software to formally register a copyright , and sign over the copyrights to GNU .
If you do n't file a formal copyright re</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Okay, this is going to be wildly unpopular on slashdot, but I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue that the damages are not necessarily disproportionate to the actual harm.
It's definitely not correct to calculate the actual harm like this: 24 songs, multiplied by a market price of $1 per track on iTunes, giving 24x$1= $24.
She wasn't being sued for obtaining single copies of the 24 songs illegally for her own use, she was being sued for giving them to other people -- possibly a very large number of other people.
Another possibility would be to take 24x$1, and then multiply by the number of people who actually downloaded the specific copies of the songs that she made available.
There are a couple of problems with this.
One is that nobody has any data on how many people downloaded those specific copies.
Maybe zero people downloaded them.
Maybe 10 people downloaded a particular song, each of them copied that copy 10 times for 10 friends, and so on, so that conceivably there are millions of mp3 files of that song out there that are all descended from Jammie Thomas's original.
We just don't know, because the copies don't carry a history that allows us to know how they spread.
You could argue that other people may have bought CDs of the same songs, ripped them, and put them online; again, there was no data about this at trial.
And in any case, it's kind of morally obtuse to say that what she did isn't really so bad, because lots of other people were doing it as well.
If you want to argue that what she did wasn't blameworthy, then you need to do it on other grounds, e.g., US copyright laws are unjust; well, I agree that US copyright laws are unjust, but we're talking about a court case here, so that's irrelevant.
Suppose I set fire to the trees behind my neighbor's house, and around the same time 100 other people are also lighting matches and throwing them into the same bushes.
My neighbor's house burns down, and he sues me.
IANAL, but I doubt that the court is going to reduce the damages they make me pay by a factor of 100, on the theory that there were 99 other people attempting to do the same thing.
So it seems to me there's a pretty strong logical case to be made that you should calculate the damages like this: 24x$1xNxBxLxD.
N is the total number of people who downloaded the song (and, as argued above, not just the number who got a copy directly from the ones Thomas put up).
B is a factor that takes into account that only a fraction of the blame is hers, but I argued above that setting B=1 is reasonable (or at least not so unreasonable that it's obviously unconstitutional).
L is a factor that measures how much the industry really loses when songs of a certain market value are downloaded.
The industry usually assumes L=1, i.e., that every illegal download equals one lost sale.
We actually don't know what L is.
It's possible that 75\% of downloaders would never have bought the song (e.g., they're 12-year-olds who have no money), in which case L=.25.
It's even possible that L is negative (illegal downloads publicize and popularize the music, thereby driving legal sales).
But these things are all impossible to determine, so I don't think it's completely crazy to say L=1, as a ballpark figure.
(Again, the issue isn't whether it's exactly correct, the issue is whether it's so crazy that it gives a result that is obviously unconstitutionally disproportionate.
) And finally D is the deterrent factor.
When you sue someone for copyright violation, you're allowed to sue for more than the actual damages.
As an example, if you write GPL'd software, in many cases the market value of the software is vanishingly small because you're intentionally giving it away for free; nevertheless if you satisfy certain technical requirements, you're allowed to sue for more than your actual damages, i.e., D can be much greater than one.
(This is one reason that the GNU project encourages authors of GNU software to formally register a copyright, and sign over the copyrights to GNU.
If you don't file a formal copyright re</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582679</id>
	<title>Re:Of Course</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246703220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>YouTube. It is the model for the future and the model that is being embraced by young people.</i> </p><p>For as long as Google is prepared to foot the bill.</p><p>But you don't have to produce for the twenty-something market.</p><p>The geek always talks about "obsolete business models." He never considers the possibility that marketing to the geek is the obsolete business model.</p><p> This new golden age of theatrical animation plays well to audiences of every age. It plays particularly well to the audience that will buy the DVD and Blu-Ray disk.</p><p> The three disk set from Amazon that includes a digital download copy and sells for $25. Theoretically at least, that is 150+ GB of content or more than half of your neighbor's monthly download cap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YouTube .
It is the model for the future and the model that is being embraced by young people .
For as long as Google is prepared to foot the bill.But you do n't have to produce for the twenty-something market.The geek always talks about " obsolete business models .
" He never considers the possibility that marketing to the geek is the obsolete business model .
This new golden age of theatrical animation plays well to audiences of every age .
It plays particularly well to the audience that will buy the DVD and Blu-Ray disk .
The three disk set from Amazon that includes a digital download copy and sells for $ 25 .
Theoretically at least , that is 150 + GB of content or more than half of your neighbor 's monthly download cap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YouTube.
It is the model for the future and the model that is being embraced by young people.
For as long as Google is prepared to foot the bill.But you don't have to produce for the twenty-something market.The geek always talks about "obsolete business models.
" He never considers the possibility that marketing to the geek is the obsolete business model.
This new golden age of theatrical animation plays well to audiences of every age.
It plays particularly well to the audience that will buy the DVD and Blu-Ray disk.
The three disk set from Amazon that includes a digital download copy and sells for $25.
Theoretically at least, that is 150+ GB of content or more than half of your neighbor's monthly download cap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580699</id>
	<title>Re:Pay up thief</title>
	<author>vodevil</author>
	<datestamp>1246727640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But if they close Guantanamo, she might have to come back to the states, and which prison would accept a person who has clearly committed such a heinous crime?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if they close Guantanamo , she might have to come back to the states , and which prison would accept a person who has clearly committed such a heinous crime ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if they close Guantanamo, she might have to come back to the states, and which prison would accept a person who has clearly committed such a heinous crime?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28584659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28583273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28583297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28583569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28594155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28584517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28585595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28584685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28587653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28585841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28590749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28583953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_134235_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_134235.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28584659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28584517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28583297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28594155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_134235.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28585841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_134235.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_134235.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28583569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581147
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581629
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581863
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28583273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28590749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581071
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582047
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581547
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581167
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581231
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28584685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_134235.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_134235.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_134235.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28587653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_134235.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580665
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580727
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28581617
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28582679
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28585595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28580935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_134235.28583953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
