<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_04_1638223</id>
	<title>Study Deconstructs Canadian Copyright Lobby Deception</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246731540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"A new Canadian study <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4079/125/">deconstructs how copyright lobby groups manipulate public opinion</a> by laundering proposals through seemingly independent groups. The study started after the Conference Board of Canada was shown to have <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/05/28/185259/Conference-Board-Admits-Plagiarism-Pulls-Copyright-Report">plagiarized several of its IP reports</a> and now shows the connections that all lead through the MPAA and RIAA. Michael Geist writes, 'It is not just that these reports all receive financial support from the same organizations and say largely the same thing.  It is also that the reports each build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus on the state of Canadian law and the need for specific reforms.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " A new Canadian study deconstructs how copyright lobby groups manipulate public opinion by laundering proposals through seemingly independent groups .
The study started after the Conference Board of Canada was shown to have plagiarized several of its IP reports and now shows the connections that all lead through the MPAA and RIAA .
Michael Geist writes , 'It is not just that these reports all receive financial support from the same organizations and say largely the same thing .
It is also that the reports each build on one another , creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus on the state of Canadian law and the need for specific reforms .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "A new Canadian study deconstructs how copyright lobby groups manipulate public opinion by laundering proposals through seemingly independent groups.
The study started after the Conference Board of Canada was shown to have plagiarized several of its IP reports and now shows the connections that all lead through the MPAA and RIAA.
Michael Geist writes, 'It is not just that these reports all receive financial support from the same organizations and say largely the same thing.
It is also that the reports each build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus on the state of Canadian law and the need for specific reforms.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28584217</id>
	<title>It took this man to point the obvious out.</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1246724880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must congratulate Michael Geist on this work.</p><p>I for one knew this was all hoo hoo when I first read about how Canadians loose between $10-30 billion a year.  That's $333-1000 per man, woman &amp; child.  I would barely consume the $333 myself in a year.  My 99 year old grand mother would be in the order of 50c a decade these days.  And my newborn child well he's a software junky at oh lets say NOTHING.   Sure I could find a 16 year old girl that eats $1000 a month in itunes alone.  But on average for every breathing person in Canada a number like $333 is insane.</p><p>The per capita income of every person in Canada is $39,300USD (2008 est.) or  $45,674.47 CAD.  before tax.  These reports are basically saying that every person in Canada steals any where from 1-3\% after tax income in the form of download-able music/movies and software.  Assuming a 30\% tax rate ( I pulled 30\% out of thin air ).   This is not saying that ALL consumption is illegal,  All it is saying that every breathing human in Canada steals the equivalent of 1-3\% of their net income on a subset of media.  This is an insanely huge number people.</p><p>Bottom line is the media companies are lazy and greedy. One of the most fundamental reasons why people download entertain is quite simple.  It comes in a form that is easy to use and extremely convenient.  The entertainment industries really missed the opportunity back in the 90's when all this started.  Instead of actually looking at this consumption path as a HUGE source of revenue that s$\%t themselves and paniced.  Instead of investing in this essentially new industry they took the easy route ( so they thought ) and tried to get the courts and governments of the planet to essentially make it law that traditional consumption methods must be adhered to.  This at the relatively trivial cost of lobby groups and legal consults ( so they thought ).</p><p>I'm no Apple fan boy.  But you gotta respect Apple when they basically said. &#226;oeWe are doing this and you will play along and you will make a profit through us.  So sit down shut up and this the damn cheque already.  Oh and you have no manufacturing or shipping costs.  That's now free.  So The cheque is basically 100\% profit.&#226;  I'm still amazed the media companies tried to stop them.  Absolutely stunned.  ( I'm ignoring the whole DRM thing, that rant is already done. )</p><p>So back full circle.  After 15+ years of this borderline moronic adventure the entertainment industry  they are still at it. ( Even my dog learns faster than these people. )  They are still trying to manipulate world governments and laws so that they can have an easy ride to the money.  Guys clearly it is not an easy ride the path you are on.  Wake up,  Apple, Amazon are making easy money for you.  They are clearly on the easy path.  Stop the lying and cheating and just start delivering product in forms people want.  You will make more easy money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must congratulate Michael Geist on this work.I for one knew this was all hoo hoo when I first read about how Canadians loose between $ 10-30 billion a year .
That 's $ 333-1000 per man , woman &amp; child .
I would barely consume the $ 333 myself in a year .
My 99 year old grand mother would be in the order of 50c a decade these days .
And my newborn child well he 's a software junky at oh lets say NOTHING .
Sure I could find a 16 year old girl that eats $ 1000 a month in itunes alone .
But on average for every breathing person in Canada a number like $ 333 is insane.The per capita income of every person in Canada is $ 39,300USD ( 2008 est .
) or $ 45,674.47 CAD .
before tax .
These reports are basically saying that every person in Canada steals any where from 1-3 \ % after tax income in the form of download-able music/movies and software .
Assuming a 30 \ % tax rate ( I pulled 30 \ % out of thin air ) .
This is not saying that ALL consumption is illegal , All it is saying that every breathing human in Canada steals the equivalent of 1-3 \ % of their net income on a subset of media .
This is an insanely huge number people.Bottom line is the media companies are lazy and greedy .
One of the most fundamental reasons why people download entertain is quite simple .
It comes in a form that is easy to use and extremely convenient .
The entertainment industries really missed the opportunity back in the 90 's when all this started .
Instead of actually looking at this consumption path as a HUGE source of revenue that s $ \ % t themselves and paniced .
Instead of investing in this essentially new industry they took the easy route ( so they thought ) and tried to get the courts and governments of the planet to essentially make it law that traditional consumption methods must be adhered to .
This at the relatively trivial cost of lobby groups and legal consults ( so they thought ) .I 'm no Apple fan boy .
But you got ta respect Apple when they basically said .
  oeWe are doing this and you will play along and you will make a profit through us .
So sit down shut up and this the damn cheque already .
Oh and you have no manufacturing or shipping costs .
That 's now free .
So The cheque is basically 100 \ % profit.   I 'm still amazed the media companies tried to stop them .
Absolutely stunned .
( I 'm ignoring the whole DRM thing , that rant is already done .
) So back full circle .
After 15 + years of this borderline moronic adventure the entertainment industry they are still at it .
( Even my dog learns faster than these people .
) They are still trying to manipulate world governments and laws so that they can have an easy ride to the money .
Guys clearly it is not an easy ride the path you are on .
Wake up , Apple , Amazon are making easy money for you .
They are clearly on the easy path .
Stop the lying and cheating and just start delivering product in forms people want .
You will make more easy money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must congratulate Michael Geist on this work.I for one knew this was all hoo hoo when I first read about how Canadians loose between $10-30 billion a year.
That's $333-1000 per man, woman &amp; child.
I would barely consume the $333 myself in a year.
My 99 year old grand mother would be in the order of 50c a decade these days.
And my newborn child well he's a software junky at oh lets say NOTHING.
Sure I could find a 16 year old girl that eats $1000 a month in itunes alone.
But on average for every breathing person in Canada a number like $333 is insane.The per capita income of every person in Canada is $39,300USD (2008 est.
) or  $45,674.47 CAD.
before tax.
These reports are basically saying that every person in Canada steals any where from 1-3\% after tax income in the form of download-able music/movies and software.
Assuming a 30\% tax rate ( I pulled 30\% out of thin air ).
This is not saying that ALL consumption is illegal,  All it is saying that every breathing human in Canada steals the equivalent of 1-3\% of their net income on a subset of media.
This is an insanely huge number people.Bottom line is the media companies are lazy and greedy.
One of the most fundamental reasons why people download entertain is quite simple.
It comes in a form that is easy to use and extremely convenient.
The entertainment industries really missed the opportunity back in the 90's when all this started.
Instead of actually looking at this consumption path as a HUGE source of revenue that s$\%t themselves and paniced.
Instead of investing in this essentially new industry they took the easy route ( so they thought ) and tried to get the courts and governments of the planet to essentially make it law that traditional consumption methods must be adhered to.
This at the relatively trivial cost of lobby groups and legal consults ( so they thought ).I'm no Apple fan boy.
But you gotta respect Apple when they basically said.
âoeWe are doing this and you will play along and you will make a profit through us.
So sit down shut up and this the damn cheque already.
Oh and you have no manufacturing or shipping costs.
That's now free.
So The cheque is basically 100\% profit.â  I'm still amazed the media companies tried to stop them.
Absolutely stunned.
( I'm ignoring the whole DRM thing, that rant is already done.
)So back full circle.
After 15+ years of this borderline moronic adventure the entertainment industry  they are still at it.
( Even my dog learns faster than these people.
)  They are still trying to manipulate world governments and laws so that they can have an easy ride to the money.
Guys clearly it is not an easy ride the path you are on.
Wake up,  Apple, Amazon are making easy money for you.
They are clearly on the easy path.
Stop the lying and cheating and just start delivering product in forms people want.
You will make more easy money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581929</id>
	<title>Re:Deconstruct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246738440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Psssst -- just because a word is new to you doesn't make it a new word.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Psssst -- just because a word is new to you does n't make it a new word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psssst -- just because a word is new to you doesn't make it a new word.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28593951</id>
	<title>First, We Shoot All The Lobbyists</title>
	<author>Toad-san</author>
	<datestamp>1246892220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, not an original idea.  And probably not a perfect solution.</p><p>But it'll do, pig, it'll do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , not an original idea .
And probably not a perfect solution.But it 'll do , pig , it 'll do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, not an original idea.
And probably not a perfect solution.But it'll do, pig, it'll do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28586263</id>
	<title>Re:How the Copyright Lobby runs the Media</title>
	<author>mambodog</author>
	<datestamp>1246807800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw that story too, and I have to say, the solution is pretty obvious:
If the profits from bootleg DVDs being sold is funding terrorism, then we all need to do the right thing.  As Australians we must hold our heads up high... and torrent the movies instead. Then how will they make their terrorism funding cash? Yeah! Aussie Aussie Aussie!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw that story too , and I have to say , the solution is pretty obvious : If the profits from bootleg DVDs being sold is funding terrorism , then we all need to do the right thing .
As Australians we must hold our heads up high... and torrent the movies instead .
Then how will they make their terrorism funding cash ?
Yeah ! Aussie Aussie Aussie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw that story too, and I have to say, the solution is pretty obvious:
If the profits from bootleg DVDs being sold is funding terrorism, then we all need to do the right thing.
As Australians we must hold our heads up high... and torrent the movies instead.
Then how will they make their terrorism funding cash?
Yeah! Aussie Aussie Aussie!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581677</id>
	<title>Of course, it turns out that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246735380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>an anonymous reader is really the chief Pirate of Pirate Bay!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>an anonymous reader is really the chief Pirate of Pirate Bay !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an anonymous reader is really the chief Pirate of Pirate Bay!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28584235</id>
	<title>Re:Control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have a typo there.</p><p>You said: "The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit from the works of an artist."</p><p>I think you meant "The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit on behalf of an artist."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a typo there.You said : " The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit from the works of an artist .
" I think you meant " The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit on behalf of an artist .
" : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a typo there.You said: "The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit from the works of an artist.
"I think you meant "The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit on behalf of an artist.
" :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28586511</id>
	<title>Re:A Good Strategy</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1246811100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Reports that build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus, with some invisible hand guiding everything and everyone... where have I heard <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html" title="nytimes.com">that</a> [nytimes.com], before?</p></div><p>There's that, and also this: <a href="http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/print.html" title="salon.com">http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/print.html</a> [salon.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reports that build on one another , creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus , with some invisible hand guiding everything and everyone... where have I heard that [ nytimes.com ] , before ? There 's that , and also this : http : //archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/print.html [ salon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reports that build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus, with some invisible hand guiding everything and everyone... where have I heard that [nytimes.com], before?There's that, and also this: http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/print.html [salon.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28582529</id>
	<title>Another excuse for raising taxes</title>
	<author>MvdB</author>
	<datestamp>1246701360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, past experience has shown that eventually these things affect politicians. They see variations on the same thing proclaimed by multiple groups and think they have to do something. That something is usually increasing the levy/fee/tax on blank DVDs and CDs, coupled with proclamations that you are championing Canadian home-grown talent. The difference between levy and tax? You can put GST (5\%) on a levy, but you can't put GST on a tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , past experience has shown that eventually these things affect politicians .
They see variations on the same thing proclaimed by multiple groups and think they have to do something .
That something is usually increasing the levy/fee/tax on blank DVDs and CDs , coupled with proclamations that you are championing Canadian home-grown talent .
The difference between levy and tax ?
You can put GST ( 5 \ % ) on a levy , but you ca n't put GST on a tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, past experience has shown that eventually these things affect politicians.
They see variations on the same thing proclaimed by multiple groups and think they have to do something.
That something is usually increasing the levy/fee/tax on blank DVDs and CDs, coupled with proclamations that you are championing Canadian home-grown talent.
The difference between levy and tax?
You can put GST (5\%) on a levy, but you can't put GST on a tax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581779</id>
	<title>Not newsworthy</title>
	<author>JCZwart</author>
	<datestamp>1246736520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's newsworthy? This news will be forgotten. What will be remembered is that IP is violated on a large scale. This will fuel incentives towards more grotesque punishments of the violators.<br>
<br>&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's newsworthy ?
This news will be forgotten .
What will be remembered is that IP is violated on a large scale .
This will fuel incentives towards more grotesque punishments of the violators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's newsworthy?
This news will be forgotten.
What will be remembered is that IP is violated on a large scale.
This will fuel incentives towards more grotesque punishments of the violators.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583063</id>
	<title>I'm shocked!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246708140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean the commercial entities with a revenue stream to protect are funding lobby groups to manipulate public opinion and corrupt the political process?<br>I'm shocked! Shocked I tell ya!</p><p>Well, OK. I'm not that shocked. In fact I'm pretty sure this has happened before.<br>Exxon is pretty good at this sort of thing:-<br><a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/" title="exxonsecrets.org">http://www.exxonsecrets.org/</a> [exxonsecrets.org]<br><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding" title="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p><p>And groups like the Heartland Institute ( <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland\_Institute" title="sourcewatch.org">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland\_Institute</a> [sourcewatch.org] ) are whoring for so many masters I fully expect to see them expand into the "intellectual property" debate any day now.</p><p>Its pretty important for citizens to hone their bullshit detectors to try and figure out when they are the target of a snow job.<br>Here are a few tools I use to pretty good effect when employing my bullshit detector:</p><p>"Who benefits" - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui\_bono" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui\_bono</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>"You can't get something for nothing" - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation\_law" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation\_law</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>"The simpler theory is often correct" - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams\_razor" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams\_razor</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>( be careful with that last one - it can be a slippery sucker)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the commercial entities with a revenue stream to protect are funding lobby groups to manipulate public opinion and corrupt the political process ? I 'm shocked !
Shocked I tell ya ! Well , OK. I 'm not that shocked .
In fact I 'm pretty sure this has happened before.Exxon is pretty good at this sort of thing : -http : //www.exxonsecrets.org/ [ exxonsecrets.org ] http : //www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding [ guardian.co.uk ] And groups like the Heartland Institute ( http : //www.sourcewatch.org/index.php ? title = Heartland \ _Institute [ sourcewatch.org ] ) are whoring for so many masters I fully expect to see them expand into the " intellectual property " debate any day now.Its pretty important for citizens to hone their bullshit detectors to try and figure out when they are the target of a snow job.Here are a few tools I use to pretty good effect when employing my bullshit detector : " Who benefits " - http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui \ _bono [ wikipedia.org ] " You ca n't get something for nothing " - http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation \ _law [ wikipedia.org ] " The simpler theory is often correct " - http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams \ _razor [ wikipedia.org ] ( be careful with that last one - it can be a slippery sucker )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the commercial entities with a revenue stream to protect are funding lobby groups to manipulate public opinion and corrupt the political process?I'm shocked!
Shocked I tell ya!Well, OK. I'm not that shocked.
In fact I'm pretty sure this has happened before.Exxon is pretty good at this sort of thing:-http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ [exxonsecrets.org]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding [guardian.co.uk]And groups like the Heartland Institute ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland\_Institute [sourcewatch.org] ) are whoring for so many masters I fully expect to see them expand into the "intellectual property" debate any day now.Its pretty important for citizens to hone their bullshit detectors to try and figure out when they are the target of a snow job.Here are a few tools I use to pretty good effect when employing my bullshit detector:"Who benefits" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui\_bono [wikipedia.org]"You can't get something for nothing" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation\_law [wikipedia.org]"The simpler theory is often correct" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams\_razor [wikipedia.org]( be careful with that last one - it can be a slippery sucker)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28585611</id>
	<title>Re:Deconstruct</title>
	<author>edittard</author>
	<datestamp>1246794960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bet you don't know what it means either.  It certainly doesn't mean "refute" or "disagree with" like 99\% of cretins who use it seem to think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet you do n't know what it means either .
It certainly does n't mean " refute " or " disagree with " like 99 \ % of cretins who use it seem to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet you don't know what it means either.
It certainly doesn't mean "refute" or "disagree with" like 99\% of cretins who use it seem to think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581791</id>
	<title>A Good Strategy</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1246736580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reports that build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus, with some invisible hand guiding everything and everyone... where have I heard <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html" title="nytimes.com">that</a> [nytimes.com], before?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reports that build on one another , creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus , with some invisible hand guiding everything and everyone... where have I heard that [ nytimes.com ] , before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reports that build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus, with some invisible hand guiding everything and everyone... where have I heard that [nytimes.com], before?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581717</id>
	<title>The same could be said for opposing views</title>
	<author>basementman</author>
	<datestamp>1246735800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course the reports build on one another, slashdot  and every other copyright reform group do the exact same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the reports build on one another , slashdot and every other copyright reform group do the exact same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the reports build on one another, slashdot  and every other copyright reform group do the exact same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583225</id>
	<title>Control</title>
	<author>fireheadca</author>
	<datestamp>1246710420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit from the works of an artist.</p><p>The artist seeks a 3rd party to exihibit his works for publicity, but this should not be withstanding ad infinitum.</p><p>Perhaps artists need to include a clause in their contracts opening up their works (for derivitives, etc) within a<br>reasonable timeframe.</p><p>Copyright is about control. Control of the artists, control of the audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit from the works of an artist.The artist seeks a 3rd party to exihibit his works for publicity , but this should not be withstanding ad infinitum.Perhaps artists need to include a clause in their contracts opening up their works ( for derivitives , etc ) within areasonable timeframe.Copyright is about control .
Control of the artists , control of the audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit from the works of an artist.The artist seeks a 3rd party to exihibit his works for publicity, but this should not be withstanding ad infinitum.Perhaps artists need to include a clause in their contracts opening up their works (for derivitives, etc) within areasonable timeframe.Copyright is about control.
Control of the artists, control of the audience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581787</id>
	<title>Surprise, surprise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246736580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a red herring.<br> <br>
There is no such thing as "independent groups" in the way that the author implies (except the ones that agree with the author?), all "issue" groups have a point of view and so bias.<br> <br>The author doesn't like the Copyright Lobby's "independent groups", the Copyright Lobby doesn't like the author's favorite "independent groups". Surprise, surprise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a red herring .
There is no such thing as " independent groups " in the way that the author implies ( except the ones that agree with the author ?
) , all " issue " groups have a point of view and so bias .
The author does n't like the Copyright Lobby 's " independent groups " , the Copyright Lobby does n't like the author 's favorite " independent groups " .
Surprise , surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a red herring.
There is no such thing as "independent groups" in the way that the author implies (except the ones that agree with the author?
), all "issue" groups have a point of view and so bias.
The author doesn't like the Copyright Lobby's "independent groups", the Copyright Lobby doesn't like the author's favorite "independent groups".
Surprise, surprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583159</id>
	<title>How the Copyright Lobby runs the Media</title>
	<author>CuteSteveJobs</author>
	<datestamp>1246709340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>(I firehosed this story too with some extra information about how the Copyright Lobby primed the Australian Media to run a ridiculous piracy=terrorism story, complete with a claim by Australian Reporter Mike Munroe that pirates could "burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds":)<br>
<br>
Australia's Fairfax group published an article by Journalists Eamonn Duff and Rachel Browne claiming that <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/movie-pirates-funding-terrorists-20090628-d0s1.html?page=-1" title="brisbanetimes.com.au">people who download films from illegal file-sharing websites are financing terrorism</a> [brisbanetimes.com.au]. The article only quoted media industry sources and was basically a warmed-up press release. That evening Channel Seven "Sunday Night" current affairs program claimed how how <a href="http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/-/watch/14202483/" title="yahoo.com">movie piracy is being used to fund terrorist groups</a> [yahoo.com] including Hezbollah and Jemaah Islamiah, responsible for the Bali bombings in 2002 which killed hundreds including 94 Australians. Reporter Mike Munro claimed pirates <a href="http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1230686&amp;p=4#r77" title="whirlpool.net.au">"could burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds."</a> [whirlpool.net.au] <br>
<br>
While technically-savy voters can sort fact from fiction, <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-10024163-38.html" title="cnet.com">technically-illiterate politicians</a> [cnet.com] are <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/01/05/conroy-attacks-bittorrent-ruins-australia-online/" title="crikey.com.au">easily swayed</a> [crikey.com.au]. What's the best way to combat this sort of misinformation? Is it possible to educate our politicians that there are <a href="http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html" title="ornery.org">two</a> [ornery.org] <a href="http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-14-1.html" title="ornery.org">sides</a> [ornery.org] to <a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17327" title="wired.com">every</a> [wired.com] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood\_accounting" title="wikipedia.org">story</a> [wikipedia.org]? Or are they hopelessly in the lobbyists pockets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I firehosed this story too with some extra information about how the Copyright Lobby primed the Australian Media to run a ridiculous piracy = terrorism story , complete with a claim by Australian Reporter Mike Munroe that pirates could " burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds " : ) Australia 's Fairfax group published an article by Journalists Eamonn Duff and Rachel Browne claiming that people who download films from illegal file-sharing websites are financing terrorism [ brisbanetimes.com.au ] .
The article only quoted media industry sources and was basically a warmed-up press release .
That evening Channel Seven " Sunday Night " current affairs program claimed how how movie piracy is being used to fund terrorist groups [ yahoo.com ] including Hezbollah and Jemaah Islamiah , responsible for the Bali bombings in 2002 which killed hundreds including 94 Australians .
Reporter Mike Munro claimed pirates " could burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds .
" [ whirlpool.net.au ] While technically-savy voters can sort fact from fiction , technically-illiterate politicians [ cnet.com ] are easily swayed [ crikey.com.au ] .
What 's the best way to combat this sort of misinformation ?
Is it possible to educate our politicians that there are two [ ornery.org ] sides [ ornery.org ] to every [ wired.com ] story [ wikipedia.org ] ?
Or are they hopelessly in the lobbyists pockets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I firehosed this story too with some extra information about how the Copyright Lobby primed the Australian Media to run a ridiculous piracy=terrorism story, complete with a claim by Australian Reporter Mike Munroe that pirates could "burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds":)

Australia's Fairfax group published an article by Journalists Eamonn Duff and Rachel Browne claiming that people who download films from illegal file-sharing websites are financing terrorism [brisbanetimes.com.au].
The article only quoted media industry sources and was basically a warmed-up press release.
That evening Channel Seven "Sunday Night" current affairs program claimed how how movie piracy is being used to fund terrorist groups [yahoo.com] including Hezbollah and Jemaah Islamiah, responsible for the Bali bombings in 2002 which killed hundreds including 94 Australians.
Reporter Mike Munro claimed pirates "could burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds.
" [whirlpool.net.au] 

While technically-savy voters can sort fact from fiction, technically-illiterate politicians [cnet.com] are easily swayed [crikey.com.au].
What's the best way to combat this sort of misinformation?
Is it possible to educate our politicians that there are two [ornery.org] sides [ornery.org] to every [wired.com] story [wikipedia.org]?
Or are they hopelessly in the lobbyists pockets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581943</id>
	<title>Sounds familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246738620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It is also that the reports each build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus...</i>
<br> <br>
So it's pretty much like Global Warming Theology, then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is also that the reports each build on one another , creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus.. . So it 's pretty much like Global Warming Theology , then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is also that the reports each build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus...
 
So it's pretty much like Global Warming Theology, then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28584265</id>
	<title>Re:A Good Strategy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a group of 'well upstanding citizens' pulled this junk it would be conspiracy to defraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a group of 'well upstanding citizens ' pulled this junk it would be conspiracy to defraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a group of 'well upstanding citizens' pulled this junk it would be conspiracy to defraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28584009</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246721520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So it's pretty much like Global Warming Theology, then?</i></p><p>Yeah, I was going to say something like that but then I remembered that AGW is sacrosanct and NOT TO BE QUESTIONED!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's pretty much like Global Warming Theology , then ? Yeah , I was going to say something like that but then I remembered that AGW is sacrosanct and NOT TO BE QUESTIONED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's pretty much like Global Warming Theology, then?Yeah, I was going to say something like that but then I remembered that AGW is sacrosanct and NOT TO BE QUESTIONED!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28582163</id>
	<title>does anyone pay attention?</title>
	<author>Peter La Casse</author>
	<datestamp>1246741020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I look forward to the day when astroturf is ineffective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I look forward to the day when astroturf is ineffective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I look forward to the day when astroturf is ineffective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581695</id>
	<title>Deconstruct</title>
	<author>edittard</author>
	<datestamp>1246735500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The word "deconstruct" is the new "mashup".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The word " deconstruct " is the new " mashup " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word "deconstruct" is the new "mashup".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581817</id>
	<title>Pendulum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246736880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time for the backlash. Destroy DMCA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for the backlash .
Destroy DMCA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for the backlash.
Destroy DMCA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28589939</id>
	<title>Re:Surprise, surprise.</title>
	<author>CyberSaint</author>
	<datestamp>1246803240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is not the "Research for Hire" approach, but the fact they are using multiple puppet fronts to launder their opinions or "Astroturf". The fact that these studies were bought and paid for is irrelevant. The fact that they are trying to make it sound like they are the only opinion in town is the problem.</p><p>The fact that they are actively trying to suppress studies that <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4003/125/" title="michaelgeist.ca" rel="nofollow">differ from their party line</a> [michaelgeist.ca], and are citing multiple studies, all bought and paid for by them to make their bias seem to have more support than it actually does is what has allowed them to push studies through organizations that generally have a shred of academic credibility, like the Conference board of Canada.</p><p>Their mistake was not being creative enough, the fact that all the studies have almost the same wording would tip a 5th Grade English teacher off that there might be some plagiarism involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not the " Research for Hire " approach , but the fact they are using multiple puppet fronts to launder their opinions or " Astroturf " .
The fact that these studies were bought and paid for is irrelevant .
The fact that they are trying to make it sound like they are the only opinion in town is the problem.The fact that they are actively trying to suppress studies that differ from their party line [ michaelgeist.ca ] , and are citing multiple studies , all bought and paid for by them to make their bias seem to have more support than it actually does is what has allowed them to push studies through organizations that generally have a shred of academic credibility , like the Conference board of Canada.Their mistake was not being creative enough , the fact that all the studies have almost the same wording would tip a 5th Grade English teacher off that there might be some plagiarism involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not the "Research for Hire" approach, but the fact they are using multiple puppet fronts to launder their opinions or "Astroturf".
The fact that these studies were bought and paid for is irrelevant.
The fact that they are trying to make it sound like they are the only opinion in town is the problem.The fact that they are actively trying to suppress studies that differ from their party line [michaelgeist.ca], and are citing multiple studies, all bought and paid for by them to make their bias seem to have more support than it actually does is what has allowed them to push studies through organizations that generally have a shred of academic credibility, like the Conference board of Canada.Their mistake was not being creative enough, the fact that all the studies have almost the same wording would tip a 5th Grade English teacher off that there might be some plagiarism involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28598623</id>
	<title>Re:Deconstruct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246913280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well said.  I mean, look at how often he used the word *new*.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .
I mean , look at how often he used the word * new * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.
I mean, look at how often he used the word *new*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28582533</id>
	<title>US Laundering Efforts.</title>
	<author>Intrinsic</author>
	<datestamp>1246701360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same thing happens here in the US. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks" title="sourcewatch.org">FreedomWorks</a> [sourcewatch.org] is a front group for Political Insiders. The scary part of is that people that have joined this organzation have no idea they are apart of a front group.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing happens here in the US .
FreedomWorks [ sourcewatch.org ] is a front group for Political Insiders .
The scary part of is that people that have joined this organzation have no idea they are apart of a front group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing happens here in the US.
FreedomWorks [sourcewatch.org] is a front group for Political Insiders.
The scary part of is that people that have joined this organzation have no idea they are apart of a front group.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28586127</id>
	<title>Digging deeper in Canada</title>
	<author>PsiCTO</author>
	<datestamp>1246805820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This echoes my own experience in challenging government policy here in Canada, and makes me sad that everywhere people don't get the whole picture because they don't receive all the information on a topic. <p>In my own case, I wrote to every Opposition and Cabinet Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Alberta challenging the logic of electricity deregulation a few years ago. Since Alberta is a one-party state in effect, I got replies from all Opposition MLAs, but only one from the Government, directly from the Minister in charge. At first I had to admit it was a well-written reply and seemed to have some "weight" in that it referred to Alberta's achievements in electricity deregulation and promoting free markets. However, a quick Internet search revealed that the whole letter was just a cut and paste job of speeches delivered to various groups in Canada and the US. Moreover, some of the groups were pure sham. One named in the letter purported to be a Marketing Association or something based in Washington and they lauded Alberta as leading the way in a group of five or so "progressive" provinces and states. Other than the minister's speeches, I couldn't find any evidence that they actually existed!!!</p><p>


The most egregious claim in the letter was that since some point in time in 2000 or 2001 (I forget the exact date selected) Alberta's electricity rates had declined by a significant amount. WTF? They chose a date that was the highest point in terms of price. Prices are still not close to pre-2000 levels, especially when you factor in tacked-on transmission and delivery charges (money grabs).</p><p>


The final kicker was that despite the Alberta Government's new rules about patronage appointments, several years later, after the damage was done, the Minister got a plush posting in Washington.</p><p>


My final comment is that it was embarrassing how simplistic their "deception" was. I guess given that since the late 70s Alberta's government has been run by leaders and ministers that average, probably, no better than a high school education and have that eroded by populist, short-term focused politics I shouldn't be surprised. </p><p>


I can't wait for copyright taxes to be challenged in the courts here in Canada, and hope to be able to watch, if not support, an educated and articulate public battle the real interests behind all this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This echoes my own experience in challenging government policy here in Canada , and makes me sad that everywhere people do n't get the whole picture because they do n't receive all the information on a topic .
In my own case , I wrote to every Opposition and Cabinet Member of the Legislative Assembly ( MLA ) in Alberta challenging the logic of electricity deregulation a few years ago .
Since Alberta is a one-party state in effect , I got replies from all Opposition MLAs , but only one from the Government , directly from the Minister in charge .
At first I had to admit it was a well-written reply and seemed to have some " weight " in that it referred to Alberta 's achievements in electricity deregulation and promoting free markets .
However , a quick Internet search revealed that the whole letter was just a cut and paste job of speeches delivered to various groups in Canada and the US .
Moreover , some of the groups were pure sham .
One named in the letter purported to be a Marketing Association or something based in Washington and they lauded Alberta as leading the way in a group of five or so " progressive " provinces and states .
Other than the minister 's speeches , I could n't find any evidence that they actually existed ! ! !
The most egregious claim in the letter was that since some point in time in 2000 or 2001 ( I forget the exact date selected ) Alberta 's electricity rates had declined by a significant amount .
WTF ? They chose a date that was the highest point in terms of price .
Prices are still not close to pre-2000 levels , especially when you factor in tacked-on transmission and delivery charges ( money grabs ) .
The final kicker was that despite the Alberta Government 's new rules about patronage appointments , several years later , after the damage was done , the Minister got a plush posting in Washington .
My final comment is that it was embarrassing how simplistic their " deception " was .
I guess given that since the late 70s Alberta 's government has been run by leaders and ministers that average , probably , no better than a high school education and have that eroded by populist , short-term focused politics I should n't be surprised .
I ca n't wait for copyright taxes to be challenged in the courts here in Canada , and hope to be able to watch , if not support , an educated and articulate public battle the real interests behind all this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This echoes my own experience in challenging government policy here in Canada, and makes me sad that everywhere people don't get the whole picture because they don't receive all the information on a topic.
In my own case, I wrote to every Opposition and Cabinet Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Alberta challenging the logic of electricity deregulation a few years ago.
Since Alberta is a one-party state in effect, I got replies from all Opposition MLAs, but only one from the Government, directly from the Minister in charge.
At first I had to admit it was a well-written reply and seemed to have some "weight" in that it referred to Alberta's achievements in electricity deregulation and promoting free markets.
However, a quick Internet search revealed that the whole letter was just a cut and paste job of speeches delivered to various groups in Canada and the US.
Moreover, some of the groups were pure sham.
One named in the letter purported to be a Marketing Association or something based in Washington and they lauded Alberta as leading the way in a group of five or so "progressive" provinces and states.
Other than the minister's speeches, I couldn't find any evidence that they actually existed!!!
The most egregious claim in the letter was that since some point in time in 2000 or 2001 (I forget the exact date selected) Alberta's electricity rates had declined by a significant amount.
WTF? They chose a date that was the highest point in terms of price.
Prices are still not close to pre-2000 levels, especially when you factor in tacked-on transmission and delivery charges (money grabs).
The final kicker was that despite the Alberta Government's new rules about patronage appointments, several years later, after the damage was done, the Minister got a plush posting in Washington.
My final comment is that it was embarrassing how simplistic their "deception" was.
I guess given that since the late 70s Alberta's government has been run by leaders and ministers that average, probably, no better than a high school education and have that eroded by populist, short-term focused politics I shouldn't be surprised.
I can't wait for copyright taxes to be challenged in the courts here in Canada, and hope to be able to watch, if not support, an educated and articulate public battle the real interests behind all this...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581941</id>
	<title>Re:Surprise, surprise.</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246738560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no such thing as "independent groups" in the way that the author implies</p></div><p>Well of course.  You don't put the time/effort/money into forming a group like that unless you have some kind of agenda.  That agenda isn't necessarily nefarious or evil, but there has to be something that you're trying to investigate or achieve, and so you're probably going to favor ideas that help you toward your agenda.  It's not strange to think that someone looking at the issues with a different agenda in mind will favor different ideas.
</p><p>However, that doesn't necessarily mean that a a given group's agenda isn't nefarious or evil, or at the very least self-serving to the detriment of others.  I personally have little doubt that the RIAA and MPAA are focussed on their own profits and aren't very concerned with the consumers' welfare or even artists' welfare.  Maybe a pro-consumer group wouldn't be too interested in the RIAA's welfare either, but given that I'm a consumer and not the RIAA, I'm ok with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as " independent groups " in the way that the author impliesWell of course .
You do n't put the time/effort/money into forming a group like that unless you have some kind of agenda .
That agenda is n't necessarily nefarious or evil , but there has to be something that you 're trying to investigate or achieve , and so you 're probably going to favor ideas that help you toward your agenda .
It 's not strange to think that someone looking at the issues with a different agenda in mind will favor different ideas .
However , that does n't necessarily mean that a a given group 's agenda is n't nefarious or evil , or at the very least self-serving to the detriment of others .
I personally have little doubt that the RIAA and MPAA are focussed on their own profits and are n't very concerned with the consumers ' welfare or even artists ' welfare .
Maybe a pro-consumer group would n't be too interested in the RIAA 's welfare either , but given that I 'm a consumer and not the RIAA , I 'm ok with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as "independent groups" in the way that the author impliesWell of course.
You don't put the time/effort/money into forming a group like that unless you have some kind of agenda.
That agenda isn't necessarily nefarious or evil, but there has to be something that you're trying to investigate or achieve, and so you're probably going to favor ideas that help you toward your agenda.
It's not strange to think that someone looking at the issues with a different agenda in mind will favor different ideas.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that a a given group's agenda isn't nefarious or evil, or at the very least self-serving to the detriment of others.
I personally have little doubt that the RIAA and MPAA are focussed on their own profits and aren't very concerned with the consumers' welfare or even artists' welfare.
Maybe a pro-consumer group wouldn't be too interested in the RIAA's welfare either, but given that I'm a consumer and not the RIAA, I'm ok with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583787</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, it turns out that...</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1246717740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then why doesn't the article have any "Aaarrgh"s in it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why does n't the article have any " Aaarrgh " s in it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why doesn't the article have any "Aaarrgh"s in it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28584065</id>
	<title>Michael Geist is a liar, as shown.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246722780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does the university feel the need to employ a liar as a professor?</p><p>He writes:<br>"clearly just a part of a much larger strategy to influence Canadian copyright policy by creating a narrative of crisis and the false impression of Canada as a piracy haven."</p><p>One of the sources he links to for support, and who links back to him for support, writes the following article:</p><p>http://www.slaw.ca/2009/06/26/maybe-the-jury-didnt-like-the-songs/</p><p>Hence it's clear that Canada IS by all reasonable definition a piracy haven, according to the most reasonable definition that piracy is not punished, as is clearly evident from the article.</p><p>Why does Geist feel the need to lie about the strictness of enforcement in Canada?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the university feel the need to employ a liar as a professor ? He writes : " clearly just a part of a much larger strategy to influence Canadian copyright policy by creating a narrative of crisis and the false impression of Canada as a piracy haven .
" One of the sources he links to for support , and who links back to him for support , writes the following article : http : //www.slaw.ca/2009/06/26/maybe-the-jury-didnt-like-the-songs/Hence it 's clear that Canada IS by all reasonable definition a piracy haven , according to the most reasonable definition that piracy is not punished , as is clearly evident from the article.Why does Geist feel the need to lie about the strictness of enforcement in Canada ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the university feel the need to employ a liar as a professor?He writes:"clearly just a part of a much larger strategy to influence Canadian copyright policy by creating a narrative of crisis and the false impression of Canada as a piracy haven.
"One of the sources he links to for support, and who links back to him for support, writes the following article:http://www.slaw.ca/2009/06/26/maybe-the-jury-didnt-like-the-songs/Hence it's clear that Canada IS by all reasonable definition a piracy haven, according to the most reasonable definition that piracy is not punished, as is clearly evident from the article.Why does Geist feel the need to lie about the strictness of enforcement in Canada?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581679</id>
	<title>Canadian astroturfing, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246735380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that we'll need to look closer at copyright ``movements'' in other parts too. But do take a moment to savour the delicious irony. It really is quite sublime, and telling in its own right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that we 'll need to look closer at copyright ` ` movements' ' in other parts too .
But do take a moment to savour the delicious irony .
It really is quite sublime , and telling in its own right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that we'll need to look closer at copyright ``movements'' in other parts too.
But do take a moment to savour the delicious irony.
It really is quite sublime, and telling in its own right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1638223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28586263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1638223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28584265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1638223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28586511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1638223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28585611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1638223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28598623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1638223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1638223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28584009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1638223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28589939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1638223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28584235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_1638223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28582529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28584235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28584009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28586263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28582163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28598623
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28585611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28586511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28584265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28581941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28589939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_1638223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_1638223.28583063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
