<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_06_2034213</id>
	<title>RIAA Seeks Web Removal of Courtroom Audio</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246873680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>suraj.sun writes to tell us that the RIAA has asked a federal judge to order the removal of what they are calling "<a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/nesson/">unauthorized and illegal recordings</a>" by Harvard University's Charles Nesson of pretrial hearings and depositions in a file-sharing lawsuit.  <i>"The case concerns former Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum, who Nesson is defending in an RIAA civil lawsuit accusing him of file-sharing copyrighted music. Jury selection is scheduled in three weeks, in what is shaping up to be the RIAA's second of about 30,000 cases against individuals to reach trial.  The labels, represented by the RIAA, on Monday cited a series of examples in which they accuse Nesson of violating court orders and privacy laws by posting audio to his blog or to the Berkman site."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>suraj.sun writes to tell us that the RIAA has asked a federal judge to order the removal of what they are calling " unauthorized and illegal recordings " by Harvard University 's Charles Nesson of pretrial hearings and depositions in a file-sharing lawsuit .
" The case concerns former Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum , who Nesson is defending in an RIAA civil lawsuit accusing him of file-sharing copyrighted music .
Jury selection is scheduled in three weeks , in what is shaping up to be the RIAA 's second of about 30,000 cases against individuals to reach trial .
The labels , represented by the RIAA , on Monday cited a series of examples in which they accuse Nesson of violating court orders and privacy laws by posting audio to his blog or to the Berkman site .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suraj.sun writes to tell us that the RIAA has asked a federal judge to order the removal of what they are calling "unauthorized and illegal recordings" by Harvard University's Charles Nesson of pretrial hearings and depositions in a file-sharing lawsuit.
"The case concerns former Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum, who Nesson is defending in an RIAA civil lawsuit accusing him of file-sharing copyrighted music.
Jury selection is scheduled in three weeks, in what is shaping up to be the RIAA's second of about 30,000 cases against individuals to reach trial.
The labels, represented by the RIAA, on Monday cited a series of examples in which they accuse Nesson of violating court orders and privacy laws by posting audio to his blog or to the Berkman site.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601005</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246881240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em> <b>"In a constitutional republic like the United States, people often think that the proper response to an unjust law is to try to use the political process to change the law, but to obey and respect the law until it is changed. But if the law is itself clearly unjust, and the lawmaking process is not designed to quickly obliterate such unjust laws, then Thoreau says the law deserves no respect and it should be broken."</b></em> </p><p>Henry David Thoreau</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil\_Disobedience\_(Thoreau)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil\_Disobedience\_(Thoreau)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In a constitutional republic like the United States , people often think that the proper response to an unjust law is to try to use the political process to change the law , but to obey and respect the law until it is changed .
But if the law is itself clearly unjust , and the lawmaking process is not designed to quickly obliterate such unjust laws , then Thoreau says the law deserves no respect and it should be broken .
" Henry David Thoreauhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil \ _Disobedience \ _ ( Thoreau ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "In a constitutional republic like the United States, people often think that the proper response to an unjust law is to try to use the political process to change the law, but to obey and respect the law until it is changed.
But if the law is itself clearly unjust, and the lawmaking process is not designed to quickly obliterate such unjust laws, then Thoreau says the law deserves no respect and it should be broken.
" Henry David Thoreauhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil\_Disobedience\_(Thoreau) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600709</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Gat0r30y</author>
	<datestamp>1246879740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.</p></div><p> Indeed, someone has to be willing to break a bad law, and go to court in order for it to get heard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws .
Indeed , someone has to be willing to break a bad law , and go to court in order for it to get heard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.
Indeed, someone has to be willing to break a bad law, and go to court in order for it to get heard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600771</id>
	<title>when dealing with legal issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246879980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One is well advised not to fuck with harvard, espescially when they're openly defying law. I've got a feeling Nesson knows exactly what he's doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One is well advised not to fuck with harvard , espescially when they 're openly defying law .
I 've got a feeling Nesson knows exactly what he 's doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One is well advised not to fuck with harvard, espescially when they're openly defying law.
I've got a feeling Nesson knows exactly what he's doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601053</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246881480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the law is repugnant to the citizens that are subject to the law, it is the law that needs to change.</p><p>Just remember the three boxes of democrocy</p><p>1. Ballot box</p><p>2. Jury box</p><p>3. Ammo box.</p><p>I hope the second box wins this one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the law is repugnant to the citizens that are subject to the law , it is the law that needs to change.Just remember the three boxes of democrocy1 .
Ballot box2 .
Jury box3 .
Ammo box.I hope the second box wins this one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the law is repugnant to the citizens that are subject to the law, it is the law that needs to change.Just remember the three boxes of democrocy1.
Ballot box2.
Jury box3.
Ammo box.I hope the second box wins this one</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600929</id>
	<title>Courts strike down Unconstitutional laws, not bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246880820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.<br></i><br>Courts can't and shouldn't strike down "bad" laws or even stupid laws.  They can strike down Unconstitutional laws, but unconstitutional and bad aren't 100\% overlapping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.Courts ca n't and should n't strike down " bad " laws or even stupid laws .
They can strike down Unconstitutional laws , but unconstitutional and bad are n't 100 \ % overlapping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.Courts can't and shouldn't strike down "bad" laws or even stupid laws.
They can strike down Unconstitutional laws, but unconstitutional and bad aren't 100\% overlapping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600287</id>
	<title>They probably want to get a license fee for it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246877520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603647</id>
	<title>Why don't courts record hearings themselves</title>
	<author>kanweg</author>
	<datestamp>1246898340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been bitten in a judicial process, where the other party said one thing in one court and another thing in another. It would have worked greatly to our advantage if we'd been able to use this lying. Also, in one of the courts the judge acted like he was a member of the other party. With audio tapes .</p><p>I hope there is a lawyer here (and sticks around for a few rounds of discussion). Why do laws prohibit to make recordings in court? I think it would help to keep parties (and judges) honest. Any pointers to relevant websites are also welcome.</p><p>Bert</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been bitten in a judicial process , where the other party said one thing in one court and another thing in another .
It would have worked greatly to our advantage if we 'd been able to use this lying .
Also , in one of the courts the judge acted like he was a member of the other party .
With audio tapes .I hope there is a lawyer here ( and sticks around for a few rounds of discussion ) .
Why do laws prohibit to make recordings in court ?
I think it would help to keep parties ( and judges ) honest .
Any pointers to relevant websites are also welcome.Bert</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been bitten in a judicial process, where the other party said one thing in one court and another thing in another.
It would have worked greatly to our advantage if we'd been able to use this lying.
Also, in one of the courts the judge acted like he was a member of the other party.
With audio tapes .I hope there is a lawyer here (and sticks around for a few rounds of discussion).
Why do laws prohibit to make recordings in court?
I think it would help to keep parties (and judges) honest.
Any pointers to relevant websites are also welcome.Bert</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600463</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246878540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not quite the same.  Nesson is saying that the law is unconstitutional and is challenging it.  By doing so, if they choose to prosecute, he can get the law changed/repealed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not quite the same .
Nesson is saying that the law is unconstitutional and is challenging it .
By doing so , if they choose to prosecute , he can get the law changed/repealed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not quite the same.
Nesson is saying that the law is unconstitutional and is challenging it.
By doing so, if they choose to prosecute, he can get the law changed/repealed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600389</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246878120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now we can say "they violated 50 times as many court orders as we did". In a way, it's much more satisfying than 50-0.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we can say " they violated 50 times as many court orders as we did " .
In a way , it 's much more satisfying than 50-0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we can say "they violated 50 times as many court orders as we did".
In a way, it's much more satisfying than 50-0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601025</id>
	<title>Dear RIAA defendants,</title>
	<author>WiglyWorm</author>
	<datestamp>1246881300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are all very grateful that you have the guts to stick up to the *IAA and put copyright laws under scrutiny. I truly believe that the more of these go to court, the more likely we are to see copyright reform that favors the people, because these suits and those arguing them tend to do a good job of getting in to the press just how absurd copyright law can be.
</p><p>
That being said, can you please all drop the crusader attitude for just a second? Perhaps you could start by not commiting felonies in contempt of the proceedings against you. I doubt you have the money to follow that felony case through to the supreme court, and in the mean time, you're only going to disenfranchise yourself to the jury and public at large.
</p><p>
Can we please get some defendants who are willing to act like an average citizen for the duration of their suit before going back to being a raging crusader? Think of it as taking on a secret identity to help your cause. You might actually win if you don't look like a complete social misfit to the jury.
</p><p>
Thanks,<br> <br>

WiglyWorm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are all very grateful that you have the guts to stick up to the * IAA and put copyright laws under scrutiny .
I truly believe that the more of these go to court , the more likely we are to see copyright reform that favors the people , because these suits and those arguing them tend to do a good job of getting in to the press just how absurd copyright law can be .
That being said , can you please all drop the crusader attitude for just a second ?
Perhaps you could start by not commiting felonies in contempt of the proceedings against you .
I doubt you have the money to follow that felony case through to the supreme court , and in the mean time , you 're only going to disenfranchise yourself to the jury and public at large .
Can we please get some defendants who are willing to act like an average citizen for the duration of their suit before going back to being a raging crusader ?
Think of it as taking on a secret identity to help your cause .
You might actually win if you do n't look like a complete social misfit to the jury .
Thanks , WiglyWorm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are all very grateful that you have the guts to stick up to the *IAA and put copyright laws under scrutiny.
I truly believe that the more of these go to court, the more likely we are to see copyright reform that favors the people, because these suits and those arguing them tend to do a good job of getting in to the press just how absurd copyright law can be.
That being said, can you please all drop the crusader attitude for just a second?
Perhaps you could start by not commiting felonies in contempt of the proceedings against you.
I doubt you have the money to follow that felony case through to the supreme court, and in the mean time, you're only going to disenfranchise yourself to the jury and public at large.
Can we please get some defendants who are willing to act like an average citizen for the duration of their suit before going back to being a raging crusader?
Think of it as taking on a secret identity to help your cause.
You might actually win if you don't look like a complete social misfit to the jury.
Thanks, 

WiglyWorm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603403</id>
	<title>Nesson looks slimy to me</title>
	<author>bartwol</author>
	<datestamp>1246896600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Listen to this <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/files/2009/01/conversation-with-judge-gertner.mp3" title="harvard.edu">recording</a> [harvard.edu] that he made. He enters a phone conversation with a judge and other parties to the litigation, and fails at the outset to let any of them know that he is recording the conversation along with a room full of students listening in. This bit of eavesdropping only comes to light when the judge asks him pointedly if the call is being recorded. That is when Mr. "Openness" admits that he is in fact recording the conversation with the presence of his students.</p><p>It seems to me that Mr. Openness, an obviously deceitful person, only turns to honesty in the face of a room full of witnesses, a very astute judge, and his own potential criminal liability for illegal wiretapping and contempt of court. Translation: his ass over his principles.</p><p>Great and open guy, that Nesson character is. Hard to miss it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Listen to this recording [ harvard.edu ] that he made .
He enters a phone conversation with a judge and other parties to the litigation , and fails at the outset to let any of them know that he is recording the conversation along with a room full of students listening in .
This bit of eavesdropping only comes to light when the judge asks him pointedly if the call is being recorded .
That is when Mr. " Openness " admits that he is in fact recording the conversation with the presence of his students.It seems to me that Mr. Openness , an obviously deceitful person , only turns to honesty in the face of a room full of witnesses , a very astute judge , and his own potential criminal liability for illegal wiretapping and contempt of court .
Translation : his ass over his principles.Great and open guy , that Nesson character is .
Hard to miss it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Listen to this recording [harvard.edu] that he made.
He enters a phone conversation with a judge and other parties to the litigation, and fails at the outset to let any of them know that he is recording the conversation along with a room full of students listening in.
This bit of eavesdropping only comes to light when the judge asks him pointedly if the call is being recorded.
That is when Mr. "Openness" admits that he is in fact recording the conversation with the presence of his students.It seems to me that Mr. Openness, an obviously deceitful person, only turns to honesty in the face of a room full of witnesses, a very astute judge, and his own potential criminal liability for illegal wiretapping and contempt of court.
Translation: his ass over his principles.Great and open guy, that Nesson character is.
Hard to miss it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28606851</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1246976340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The jury is tainted when they reach a conclusion before they know all of the facts as presented by both sides in the courtroom. The idea is that the jury is supposed to enter the case without a preconceived notion of which side is in the right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The jury is tainted when they reach a conclusion before they know all of the facts as presented by both sides in the courtroom .
The idea is that the jury is supposed to enter the case without a preconceived notion of which side is in the right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The jury is tainted when they reach a conclusion before they know all of the facts as presented by both sides in the courtroom.
The idea is that the jury is supposed to enter the case without a preconceived notion of which side is in the right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28605415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600747</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1246879860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold. Yes, even when the law is stupid. This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.</p></div><p>Yet the courts can't do that until someone challenges the law, and the only practical way to do that is to violate it.</p><p>So, by your standards, reform of stupid, bad laws only comes from those who refuse to be civilized. Perhaps you should be more gracious to those barbarians who would take up that fight for the betterment of society at their own risk and expense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold .
Yes , even when the law is stupid .
This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.Yet the courts ca n't do that until someone challenges the law , and the only practical way to do that is to violate it.So , by your standards , reform of stupid , bad laws only comes from those who refuse to be civilized .
Perhaps you should be more gracious to those barbarians who would take up that fight for the betterment of society at their own risk and expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold.
Yes, even when the law is stupid.
This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.Yet the courts can't do that until someone challenges the law, and the only practical way to do that is to violate it.So, by your standards, reform of stupid, bad laws only comes from those who refuse to be civilized.
Perhaps you should be more gracious to those barbarians who would take up that fight for the betterment of society at their own risk and expense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28609005</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>ShieldW0lf</author>
	<datestamp>1246984860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is wrong to blindly behave according to law.  It is right to behave according to your conscience.</p><p>It is right for systems of which individuals are only a component to elevate some individuals to higher levels of power and responsibility and to reduce other individuals capacity to wield the power of the system.</p><p>However, the intersection of these facts do not create a situation where it is right to become a two faced liar and behave according to laws that are not consistent with your conscience while scheming to further the agenda of your conscience.</p><p>The system of law and punishment creates the two faced liars.  It is not civilized in the slightest.</p><p>A civilized system does not act to punish by causing harm, but elevates and reduces the influence of individuals according to their suitability at any particular moment in time, and allows them to be safe, happy and as involved and connected with others as is reasonable every step of the way.</p><p>When your society is organized as a vicious competition, you're nothing but a pack of savages.  Pointing to a formalized legal structure doesn't make that sort of behavior civilized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is wrong to blindly behave according to law .
It is right to behave according to your conscience.It is right for systems of which individuals are only a component to elevate some individuals to higher levels of power and responsibility and to reduce other individuals capacity to wield the power of the system.However , the intersection of these facts do not create a situation where it is right to become a two faced liar and behave according to laws that are not consistent with your conscience while scheming to further the agenda of your conscience.The system of law and punishment creates the two faced liars .
It is not civilized in the slightest.A civilized system does not act to punish by causing harm , but elevates and reduces the influence of individuals according to their suitability at any particular moment in time , and allows them to be safe , happy and as involved and connected with others as is reasonable every step of the way.When your society is organized as a vicious competition , you 're nothing but a pack of savages .
Pointing to a formalized legal structure does n't make that sort of behavior civilized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is wrong to blindly behave according to law.
It is right to behave according to your conscience.It is right for systems of which individuals are only a component to elevate some individuals to higher levels of power and responsibility and to reduce other individuals capacity to wield the power of the system.However, the intersection of these facts do not create a situation where it is right to become a two faced liar and behave according to laws that are not consistent with your conscience while scheming to further the agenda of your conscience.The system of law and punishment creates the two faced liars.
It is not civilized in the slightest.A civilized system does not act to punish by causing harm, but elevates and reduces the influence of individuals according to their suitability at any particular moment in time, and allows them to be safe, happy and as involved and connected with others as is reasonable every step of the way.When your society is organized as a vicious competition, you're nothing but a pack of savages.
Pointing to a formalized legal structure doesn't make that sort of behavior civilized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1246878780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe so. But seriously, at some point, people have to start following the law.</p><p> I mean, campaigning for the law to change is fine. I think nearly all of us would support some kind of copyright reform. Even me, and I am by no means opposed to DRM or the idea of copyright, but reconsidering the duration seems reasonable to me. </p><p>But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold. Yes, even when the law is stupid. This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws. At some point, I have to sympathize with the RIAA - they are in fact just trying to get the current laws enforced. Doesn't seem too unreasonable. They face people like Nesson who blatantly ignore the law (since when is ignorance or "i don't agree" going to let you get away with that?), opponents who lie under oath (jammie thomas), a widespread belief that they don't deserve to get paid for their work, and more. I don't personally understand why these sorts of court actions need to be secret, but I assume there is a reason for it. Nesson is just being an ass if he deliberately ignores court orders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe so .
But seriously , at some point , people have to start following the law .
I mean , campaigning for the law to change is fine .
I think nearly all of us would support some kind of copyright reform .
Even me , and I am by no means opposed to DRM or the idea of copyright , but reconsidering the duration seems reasonable to me .
But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold .
Yes , even when the law is stupid .
This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws .
At some point , I have to sympathize with the RIAA - they are in fact just trying to get the current laws enforced .
Does n't seem too unreasonable .
They face people like Nesson who blatantly ignore the law ( since when is ignorance or " i do n't agree " going to let you get away with that ?
) , opponents who lie under oath ( jammie thomas ) , a widespread belief that they do n't deserve to get paid for their work , and more .
I do n't personally understand why these sorts of court actions need to be secret , but I assume there is a reason for it .
Nesson is just being an ass if he deliberately ignores court orders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe so.
But seriously, at some point, people have to start following the law.
I mean, campaigning for the law to change is fine.
I think nearly all of us would support some kind of copyright reform.
Even me, and I am by no means opposed to DRM or the idea of copyright, but reconsidering the duration seems reasonable to me.
But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold.
Yes, even when the law is stupid.
This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.
At some point, I have to sympathize with the RIAA - they are in fact just trying to get the current laws enforced.
Doesn't seem too unreasonable.
They face people like Nesson who blatantly ignore the law (since when is ignorance or "i don't agree" going to let you get away with that?
), opponents who lie under oath (jammie thomas), a widespread belief that they don't deserve to get paid for their work, and more.
I don't personally understand why these sorts of court actions need to be secret, but I assume there is a reason for it.
Nesson is just being an ass if he deliberately ignores court orders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600537</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1246878900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  I can understand the defendant wanting the court's proceedings to remain private (so those who are ruled as 'not guilty' can keep their reputations untarnished by false allegations) but in all but sexual cases, the prosecution should be in favor of an open trial -- ESPECIALLY when it comes to copyright/trademark defense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I can understand the defendant wanting the court 's proceedings to remain private ( so those who are ruled as 'not guilty ' can keep their reputations untarnished by false allegations ) but in all but sexual cases , the prosecution should be in favor of an open trial -- ESPECIALLY when it comes to copyright/trademark defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I can understand the defendant wanting the court's proceedings to remain private (so those who are ruled as 'not guilty' can keep their reputations untarnished by false allegations) but in all but sexual cases, the prosecution should be in favor of an open trial -- ESPECIALLY when it comes to copyright/trademark defense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603505</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1246897440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a Federal Court.

</p><p>The RIAA is attempting to get it to enforce a State law. Not a Federal Law.

</p><p>Nesson is saying that he thinks the State law is so badly written that it is unconstitutional on its face. But that doesn't matter. Because...

</p><p>The Judge is saying that Nesson has to comply specifically with the Federal law in this regard, which does not prohibit what he has been doing so long as he does it according to its provisions. And the Judge tells him what he already knows: he will be in deep doo-doo if his publishing of these matters makes it difficult to seat an unbiased jury. What the Judge has NOT said, in a VERY LOUD WAY, is also important: there was no mention at all of the Massachusetts law that the RIAA states Nesson is violating. Federal Judge, Federal Court: Federal law trumps State law. That's as it should be.

</p><p>Basically the RIAA does not have an argument here that they can bring before the Federal Court. They could charge Nesson in a State Court with violating State law. That would lead to a hell of mess with regard to jurisdiction between the Federal Government and the State... in 225+ years, the Feds and the States have worked very hard together to avoid having to face that kind of mess. No one wants to go there. Some things are best left undefined, such as lines of sovereignty and jurisdiction between Federal agencies and the States that are hosting them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a Federal Court .
The RIAA is attempting to get it to enforce a State law .
Not a Federal Law .
Nesson is saying that he thinks the State law is so badly written that it is unconstitutional on its face .
But that does n't matter .
Because.. . The Judge is saying that Nesson has to comply specifically with the Federal law in this regard , which does not prohibit what he has been doing so long as he does it according to its provisions .
And the Judge tells him what he already knows : he will be in deep doo-doo if his publishing of these matters makes it difficult to seat an unbiased jury .
What the Judge has NOT said , in a VERY LOUD WAY , is also important : there was no mention at all of the Massachusetts law that the RIAA states Nesson is violating .
Federal Judge , Federal Court : Federal law trumps State law .
That 's as it should be .
Basically the RIAA does not have an argument here that they can bring before the Federal Court .
They could charge Nesson in a State Court with violating State law .
That would lead to a hell of mess with regard to jurisdiction between the Federal Government and the State... in 225 + years , the Feds and the States have worked very hard together to avoid having to face that kind of mess .
No one wants to go there .
Some things are best left undefined , such as lines of sovereignty and jurisdiction between Federal agencies and the States that are hosting them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a Federal Court.
The RIAA is attempting to get it to enforce a State law.
Not a Federal Law.
Nesson is saying that he thinks the State law is so badly written that it is unconstitutional on its face.
But that doesn't matter.
Because...

The Judge is saying that Nesson has to comply specifically with the Federal law in this regard, which does not prohibit what he has been doing so long as he does it according to its provisions.
And the Judge tells him what he already knows: he will be in deep doo-doo if his publishing of these matters makes it difficult to seat an unbiased jury.
What the Judge has NOT said, in a VERY LOUD WAY, is also important: there was no mention at all of the Massachusetts law that the RIAA states Nesson is violating.
Federal Judge, Federal Court: Federal law trumps State law.
That's as it should be.
Basically the RIAA does not have an argument here that they can bring before the Federal Court.
They could charge Nesson in a State Court with violating State law.
That would lead to a hell of mess with regard to jurisdiction between the Federal Government and the State... in 225+ years, the Feds and the States have worked very hard together to avoid having to face that kind of mess.
No one wants to go there.
Some things are best left undefined, such as lines of sovereignty and jurisdiction between Federal agencies and the States that are hosting them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28609077</id>
	<title>Re:when dealing with legal issues</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1246985220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Court audio would have to be free-libre and gratis to listen to?</p><p>Can Nesson put as evidence the tunes in question and have them played and thus recorded in open court (eg to establish if the defendant was familiar with the tunes alleged to be infringingly copied) - then the RIAA couldn't block the distribution of those tunes?</p><p>Just a delicious little daydream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Court audio would have to be free-libre and gratis to listen to ? Can Nesson put as evidence the tunes in question and have them played and thus recorded in open court ( eg to establish if the defendant was familiar with the tunes alleged to be infringingly copied ) - then the RIAA could n't block the distribution of those tunes ? Just a delicious little daydream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Court audio would have to be free-libre and gratis to listen to?Can Nesson put as evidence the tunes in question and have them played and thus recorded in open court (eg to establish if the defendant was familiar with the tunes alleged to be infringingly copied) - then the RIAA couldn't block the distribution of those tunes?Just a delicious little daydream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28602145</id>
	<title>Re:Burning legal question</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1246887420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as constitutionality goes, a state law is basically the same as a federal law. A state law can be challenged and appealed up to the state's supreme court if it violates the state's constitution, or all the way to the United States Supreme Court if it violates the United States Constitution. I might be wrong on this part, but I think that if you challenge a state law based on a violation of the US Constitution, it would skip the state supreme court and go directly to the federal courts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as constitutionality goes , a state law is basically the same as a federal law .
A state law can be challenged and appealed up to the state 's supreme court if it violates the state 's constitution , or all the way to the United States Supreme Court if it violates the United States Constitution .
I might be wrong on this part , but I think that if you challenge a state law based on a violation of the US Constitution , it would skip the state supreme court and go directly to the federal courts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as constitutionality goes, a state law is basically the same as a federal law.
A state law can be challenged and appealed up to the state's supreme court if it violates the state's constitution, or all the way to the United States Supreme Court if it violates the United States Constitution.
I might be wrong on this part, but I think that if you challenge a state law based on a violation of the US Constitution, it would skip the state supreme court and go directly to the federal courts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28608607</id>
	<title>Re:Burning legal question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246983240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The federal constitution bans "Cruel and unusual punishment".  While chopping off hands may be cruel, if the hypothetical state makes such punishment usual, they could be in the clear.</p><p>--Joe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The federal constitution bans " Cruel and unusual punishment " .
While chopping off hands may be cruel , if the hypothetical state makes such punishment usual , they could be in the clear.--Joe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The federal constitution bans "Cruel and unusual punishment".
While chopping off hands may be cruel, if the hypothetical state makes such punishment usual, they could be in the clear.--Joe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28604307</id>
	<title>Really! And RIAA is a breath of honesty?</title>
	<author>Mathinker</author>
	<datestamp>1246905600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, only <b>12</b> out of 50 states forbid recording a conversation <i>you</i> have without the other party knowing. From URL <a href="http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm" title="callcorder.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm</a> [callcorder.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><blockquote><div><p>The U.S. federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations. 38 states and the D.C. permit recording telephone conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so.</p><p>12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.</p></div></blockquote><p>In the vast majority of the US, what he has done is perfectly acceptable, at least with regards to letting the other party know or not know about the conversation being recorded. Just because your <i>personal</i> ethical framework doesn't agree, this doesn't make Nesson a douchebag.</p><p>A lot of people think RIAA is "slimy" for all of the collateral damage they are causing to society while trying to preserve their dying business model. Personally, I'm undecided whether their actions are actually unethical --- but I'm certain that they <i>are</i> dangerous and detrimental to society.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , only 12 out of 50 states forbid recording a conversation you have without the other party knowing .
From URL http : //www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm [ callcorder.com ] : The U.S. federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call .
A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law , although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations .
38 states and the D.C. permit recording telephone conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so.12 states require , under most circumstances , the consent of all parties to a conversation .
Those jurisdictions are California , Connecticut , Florida , Illinois , Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan , Montana , Nevada , New Hampshire , Pennsylvania and Washington.In the vast majority of the US , what he has done is perfectly acceptable , at least with regards to letting the other party know or not know about the conversation being recorded .
Just because your personal ethical framework does n't agree , this does n't make Nesson a douchebag.A lot of people think RIAA is " slimy " for all of the collateral damage they are causing to society while trying to preserve their dying business model .
Personally , I 'm undecided whether their actions are actually unethical --- but I 'm certain that they are dangerous and detrimental to society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, only 12 out of 50 states forbid recording a conversation you have without the other party knowing.
From URL http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm [callcorder.com] :The U.S. federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call.
A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations.
38 states and the D.C. permit recording telephone conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so.12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation.
Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.In the vast majority of the US, what he has done is perfectly acceptable, at least with regards to letting the other party know or not know about the conversation being recorded.
Just because your personal ethical framework doesn't agree, this doesn't make Nesson a douchebag.A lot of people think RIAA is "slimy" for all of the collateral damage they are causing to society while trying to preserve their dying business model.
Personally, I'm undecided whether their actions are actually unethical --- but I'm certain that they are dangerous and detrimental to society.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600461</id>
	<title>Re:Too late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246878480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Serious question, would we ever know if the cat did go back in the bag? Controlling the flow of content on the internet isn't the impossibility some people make it out to be, child porn being the prime example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Serious question , would we ever know if the cat did go back in the bag ?
Controlling the flow of content on the internet is n't the impossibility some people make it out to be , child porn being the prime example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Serious question, would we ever know if the cat did go back in the bag?
Controlling the flow of content on the internet isn't the impossibility some people make it out to be, child porn being the prime example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28602437</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246889160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.</p></div></blockquote><p>How does a court do that?  I am not gay, and have not been harmed by any laws that restrict marriage to be between a man and a woman.  How do I have legal standing to strike down those laws with a court case?  It's A vs. B.  Who is the A and who is the B?</p><p>Courts don't strike down "bad laws".  People that have been harmed by "bad laws" get prosecuted and appeal their cases based on the incorrectness and/or unconstitutionality of the law that was applied against them.  It's more often than not done this way.  Somebody has to be harmed first.</p><p>Perhaps you are thinking about the legislative branch and that politicians can champion their cause and change the laws outside of the courts.</p><blockquote><div><p>But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold. Yes, even when the law is stupid.</p></div></blockquote><p>At one point Kings could just throw someone away into cells with deplorable conditions without any due process.  I am sure they considered their society "civilized".  Anytime someone says a society is civilized I tend to think it is a value judgment.</p><p>When laws are unjust, do not represent people fairly, favor one race over another, are abused, etc.  it is the DUTY of a citizen to fight such laws tooth and nail.  If that means ignoring them or violating them, so be it.  Sometimes that is the only way to challenge a law within society.</p><p>According to your logic, African-Americans should have just kept away from the Whites-Only drinking fountains, since that was the civilized thing to do and they should respect "stupid" laws.</p><p>The actions of Nesson are irrelevant to your arguments.  It does not matter what laws are being broken, your claims that laws must be followed blindly is shortsighted and more than a little offensive to those who feel wronged by unjust laws.</p><blockquote><div><p>I don't personally understand why these sorts of court actions need to be secret, but I assume there is a reason for it.</p></div></blockquote><p>You may trust that the government has our best interests, but I do not.  My position should not be considered unreasonable either.  Having a highly transparent government is a safety feature against corruption and abuses.</p><p>What you or I think about Nesson does not matter, and I will not state whether or not I agree with his actions.  I simply take issue with your assertion that we should always follows laws regardless.  I choose what laws to follow.  I don't hide either.  I look forward to the day when I can confront it in a courtroom.  However, until then I must wait since my only other option is to rely and have "faith" in my legislators.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.How does a court do that ?
I am not gay , and have not been harmed by any laws that restrict marriage to be between a man and a woman .
How do I have legal standing to strike down those laws with a court case ?
It 's A vs. B. Who is the A and who is the B ? Courts do n't strike down " bad laws " .
People that have been harmed by " bad laws " get prosecuted and appeal their cases based on the incorrectness and/or unconstitutionality of the law that was applied against them .
It 's more often than not done this way .
Somebody has to be harmed first.Perhaps you are thinking about the legislative branch and that politicians can champion their cause and change the laws outside of the courts.But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold .
Yes , even when the law is stupid.At one point Kings could just throw someone away into cells with deplorable conditions without any due process .
I am sure they considered their society " civilized " .
Anytime someone says a society is civilized I tend to think it is a value judgment.When laws are unjust , do not represent people fairly , favor one race over another , are abused , etc .
it is the DUTY of a citizen to fight such laws tooth and nail .
If that means ignoring them or violating them , so be it .
Sometimes that is the only way to challenge a law within society.According to your logic , African-Americans should have just kept away from the Whites-Only drinking fountains , since that was the civilized thing to do and they should respect " stupid " laws.The actions of Nesson are irrelevant to your arguments .
It does not matter what laws are being broken , your claims that laws must be followed blindly is shortsighted and more than a little offensive to those who feel wronged by unjust laws.I do n't personally understand why these sorts of court actions need to be secret , but I assume there is a reason for it.You may trust that the government has our best interests , but I do not .
My position should not be considered unreasonable either .
Having a highly transparent government is a safety feature against corruption and abuses.What you or I think about Nesson does not matter , and I will not state whether or not I agree with his actions .
I simply take issue with your assertion that we should always follows laws regardless .
I choose what laws to follow .
I do n't hide either .
I look forward to the day when I can confront it in a courtroom .
However , until then I must wait since my only other option is to rely and have " faith " in my legislators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.How does a court do that?
I am not gay, and have not been harmed by any laws that restrict marriage to be between a man and a woman.
How do I have legal standing to strike down those laws with a court case?
It's A vs. B.  Who is the A and who is the B?Courts don't strike down "bad laws".
People that have been harmed by "bad laws" get prosecuted and appeal their cases based on the incorrectness and/or unconstitutionality of the law that was applied against them.
It's more often than not done this way.
Somebody has to be harmed first.Perhaps you are thinking about the legislative branch and that politicians can champion their cause and change the laws outside of the courts.But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold.
Yes, even when the law is stupid.At one point Kings could just throw someone away into cells with deplorable conditions without any due process.
I am sure they considered their society "civilized".
Anytime someone says a society is civilized I tend to think it is a value judgment.When laws are unjust, do not represent people fairly, favor one race over another, are abused, etc.
it is the DUTY of a citizen to fight such laws tooth and nail.
If that means ignoring them or violating them, so be it.
Sometimes that is the only way to challenge a law within society.According to your logic, African-Americans should have just kept away from the Whites-Only drinking fountains, since that was the civilized thing to do and they should respect "stupid" laws.The actions of Nesson are irrelevant to your arguments.
It does not matter what laws are being broken, your claims that laws must be followed blindly is shortsighted and more than a little offensive to those who feel wronged by unjust laws.I don't personally understand why these sorts of court actions need to be secret, but I assume there is a reason for it.You may trust that the government has our best interests, but I do not.
My position should not be considered unreasonable either.
Having a highly transparent government is a safety feature against corruption and abuses.What you or I think about Nesson does not matter, and I will not state whether or not I agree with his actions.
I simply take issue with your assertion that we should always follows laws regardless.
I choose what laws to follow.
I don't hide either.
I look forward to the day when I can confront it in a courtroom.
However, until then I must wait since my only other option is to rely and have "faith" in my legislators.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28607997</id>
	<title>Re:Too late</title>
	<author>WNight</author>
	<datestamp>1246980900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, it's (99\%) a lie.</p><p>Not that the abuse doesn't happen, and that abusers don't make their own movies/pics, but that there just aren't secret internet chat rooms that you have to molest a kid to get into. It's... silly.</p><p>Then couple that with 95\% of people being turned off by it and the other 5\% being afraid it's a setup and it's no surprise it's not everywhere.</p><p>It's the same broken thinking that results in movies with Assassin guilds instead of lone killers. In real life criminals isolate instead of congregating unless they work together. Sure, some sickos will find compatible sickos, but are they building secret encrypted undernets for this purpose and recruiting worldwide? No.</p><p>But that doesn't get funding (and draconian new laws) like paranoid shrieking about the sky falling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , it 's ( 99 \ % ) a lie.Not that the abuse does n't happen , and that abusers do n't make their own movies/pics , but that there just are n't secret internet chat rooms that you have to molest a kid to get into .
It 's... silly.Then couple that with 95 \ % of people being turned off by it and the other 5 \ % being afraid it 's a setup and it 's no surprise it 's not everywhere.It 's the same broken thinking that results in movies with Assassin guilds instead of lone killers .
In real life criminals isolate instead of congregating unless they work together .
Sure , some sickos will find compatible sickos , but are they building secret encrypted undernets for this purpose and recruiting worldwide ?
No.But that does n't get funding ( and draconian new laws ) like paranoid shrieking about the sky falling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, it's (99\%) a lie.Not that the abuse doesn't happen, and that abusers don't make their own movies/pics, but that there just aren't secret internet chat rooms that you have to molest a kid to get into.
It's... silly.Then couple that with 95\% of people being turned off by it and the other 5\% being afraid it's a setup and it's no surprise it's not everywhere.It's the same broken thinking that results in movies with Assassin guilds instead of lone killers.
In real life criminals isolate instead of congregating unless they work together.
Sure, some sickos will find compatible sickos, but are they building secret encrypted undernets for this purpose and recruiting worldwide?
No.But that doesn't get funding (and draconian new laws) like paranoid shrieking about the sky falling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Gat0r30y</author>
	<datestamp>1246878180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&#226;oeI certainly don&#226;(TM)t agree that I am violating any law.&#226;</p></div><p>  And his justification:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&#226;oeThat is so outrageously unconstitutional that I would prefer myself to honor the United States Constitution and take my chances that recording a conversation with a judge in a federal case and opposing lawyers is somehow in violation of a Massachusetts statute that makes me a felon,&#226; Nesson said.</p></div><p> While I can certainly see how perhaps there are cases where this sort of behavior would indeed be very bad, in this particular case I think Nesson is right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>  oeI certainly don   ( TM ) t agree that I am violating any law.   And his justification :   oeThat is so outrageously unconstitutional that I would prefer myself to honor the United States Constitution and take my chances that recording a conversation with a judge in a federal case and opposing lawyers is somehow in violation of a Massachusetts statute that makes me a felon ,   Nesson said .
While I can certainly see how perhaps there are cases where this sort of behavior would indeed be very bad , in this particular case I think Nesson is right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>âoeI certainly donâ(TM)t agree that I am violating any law.â  And his justification:âoeThat is so outrageously unconstitutional that I would prefer myself to honor the United States Constitution and take my chances that recording a conversation with a judge in a federal case and opposing lawyers is somehow in violation of a Massachusetts statute that makes me a felon,â Nesson said.
While I can certainly see how perhaps there are cases where this sort of behavior would indeed be very bad, in this particular case I think Nesson is right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600327</id>
	<title>Too late</title>
	<author>clang\_jangle</author>
	<datestamp>1246877820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603733</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>the simurgh</author>
	<datestamp>1246899000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Joel Tenenbaum becuase of his lawyers actions has grounds for a retrial i'll give him that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Joel Tenenbaum becuase of his lawyers actions has grounds for a retrial i 'll give him that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joel Tenenbaum becuase of his lawyers actions has grounds for a retrial i'll give him that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601161</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246881960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rule of law is a limitation on <i>government</i>, not on citizens. It means that we are ruled by laws, rather than being ruled by individual men. The government must never depart from that ideal - in both theory and practice, it must rule according to the written laws and not according to the whims of the individuals employed as agents of the government. The rule of law has nothing to do with citizens and their choice to obey or disobey the written law - it has only to do with how the government rules in their cases.</p><p>Check wikipedia - it has it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rule of law is a limitation on government , not on citizens .
It means that we are ruled by laws , rather than being ruled by individual men .
The government must never depart from that ideal - in both theory and practice , it must rule according to the written laws and not according to the whims of the individuals employed as agents of the government .
The rule of law has nothing to do with citizens and their choice to obey or disobey the written law - it has only to do with how the government rules in their cases.Check wikipedia - it has it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rule of law is a limitation on government, not on citizens.
It means that we are ruled by laws, rather than being ruled by individual men.
The government must never depart from that ideal - in both theory and practice, it must rule according to the written laws and not according to the whims of the individuals employed as agents of the government.
The rule of law has nothing to do with citizens and their choice to obey or disobey the written law - it has only to do with how the government rules in their cases.Check wikipedia - it has it right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28605589</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1246964880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, go sit at the back of the court with the rest of your kind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , go sit at the back of the court with the rest of your kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, go sit at the back of the court with the rest of your kind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28604333</id>
	<title>This is NOT about recording in the courtroom</title>
	<author>belmolis</author>
	<datestamp>1246906020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Several commenters have made arguments based on the assumption that the recordings in question were made in a federal courtroom. That is not the case. If you RTFA, you will discover that what is at issue are recordings of depositions, which are normally taken in the offices of law or sometimes in a hotel room, and of telephone calls between the parties and the judge, where only the latter may have been in the courtroom. The argument that Massachusetts law governing recordings does not apply because the recordings were made in a federal courtroom is therefore wrong.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several commenters have made arguments based on the assumption that the recordings in question were made in a federal courtroom .
That is not the case .
If you RTFA , you will discover that what is at issue are recordings of depositions , which are normally taken in the offices of law or sometimes in a hotel room , and of telephone calls between the parties and the judge , where only the latter may have been in the courtroom .
The argument that Massachusetts law governing recordings does not apply because the recordings were made in a federal courtroom is therefore wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Several commenters have made arguments based on the assumption that the recordings in question were made in a federal courtroom.
That is not the case.
If you RTFA, you will discover that what is at issue are recordings of depositions, which are normally taken in the offices of law or sometimes in a hotel room, and of telephone calls between the parties and the judge, where only the latter may have been in the courtroom.
The argument that Massachusetts law governing recordings does not apply because the recordings were made in a federal courtroom is therefore wrong.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28634339</id>
	<title>Re:Section Five Hundred Four Says</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247140560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how exactly did you gain the right, to demand things from him? Did you pay him? Did you do things yourself?</p><p>I recommend doing one thing yourself: Vote the Pirate Party, and disobey unjust laws.</p><p>I already did it. And 229,117 others did too in Germany alone. So you will not be alone by any means, but with us then!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how exactly did you gain the right , to demand things from him ?
Did you pay him ?
Did you do things yourself ? I recommend doing one thing yourself : Vote the Pirate Party , and disobey unjust laws.I already did it .
And 229,117 others did too in Germany alone .
So you will not be alone by any means , but with us then !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how exactly did you gain the right, to demand things from him?
Did you pay him?
Did you do things yourself?I recommend doing one thing yourself: Vote the Pirate Party, and disobey unjust laws.I already did it.
And 229,117 others did too in Germany alone.
So you will not be alone by any means, but with us then!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600361</id>
	<title>Section Five Hundred Four Says</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1246877940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>second of about 30,000 cases</p></div><p>Let's assume that's 20 songs per case on unrelated albums.  According to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504" title="copyright.gov" rel="nofollow">section 504.c.1</a> [copyright.gov] each work can cost the defendent between $750 and $30,000.  And if the first trial was any indication, $30,000 per song is actually the low end once you've gotten past lawyer fees.  Ok so by the letter of the law the RIAA is looking to get anywhere from $450 million to $18 billion.  I hope to god that Nesson stops <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/tenenbaum-p2p-circus-judges-indulgence-is-at-an-end.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">upsetting the court</a> [arstechnica.com] and sets some better precedent than the first case.  I don't care if he wants to post courtroom audio.  That's a great idea and I appreciate where his heart is but that's not what this is about!  I do care that he works to either reduce these unrealistic damage amounts or redefine copyright violation.  So far he's just been really good at upsetting people--and not the right people!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>second of about 30,000 casesLet 's assume that 's 20 songs per case on unrelated albums .
According to section 504.c.1 [ copyright.gov ] each work can cost the defendent between $ 750 and $ 30,000 .
And if the first trial was any indication , $ 30,000 per song is actually the low end once you 've gotten past lawyer fees .
Ok so by the letter of the law the RIAA is looking to get anywhere from $ 450 million to $ 18 billion .
I hope to god that Nesson stops upsetting the court [ arstechnica.com ] and sets some better precedent than the first case .
I do n't care if he wants to post courtroom audio .
That 's a great idea and I appreciate where his heart is but that 's not what this is about !
I do care that he works to either reduce these unrealistic damage amounts or redefine copyright violation .
So far he 's just been really good at upsetting people--and not the right people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>second of about 30,000 casesLet's assume that's 20 songs per case on unrelated albums.
According to section 504.c.1 [copyright.gov] each work can cost the defendent between $750 and $30,000.
And if the first trial was any indication, $30,000 per song is actually the low end once you've gotten past lawyer fees.
Ok so by the letter of the law the RIAA is looking to get anywhere from $450 million to $18 billion.
I hope to god that Nesson stops upsetting the court [arstechnica.com] and sets some better precedent than the first case.
I don't care if he wants to post courtroom audio.
That's a great idea and I appreciate where his heart is but that's not what this is about!
I do care that he works to either reduce these unrealistic damage amounts or redefine copyright violation.
So far he's just been really good at upsetting people--and not the right people!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601651</id>
	<title>Re:Burning legal question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246884720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are referring to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation\_(Bill\_of\_Rights)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Incorporation</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are referring to Incorporation [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are referring to Incorporation [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600839</id>
	<title>Burning legal question</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1246880280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I gots one! I didn't read TFA, but this question still burns hot in my brain-mind.<br> <br>

If a state legislature passes a law that is unconstitutional, can that law be enforced? Let's say a state legislature passes a law stating that shoplifters must have their hands chopped off, is it now legal to start choppin' hands? If it is legal to start choppin' hands, whose heads will get chopped once it gets to federal court to be overturned as cruel and unusual?<br> <br>

It seems to me that there is no accountability for the idiots who pass unconstitutional laws in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I gots one !
I did n't read TFA , but this question still burns hot in my brain-mind .
If a state legislature passes a law that is unconstitutional , can that law be enforced ?
Let 's say a state legislature passes a law stating that shoplifters must have their hands chopped off , is it now legal to start choppin ' hands ?
If it is legal to start choppin ' hands , whose heads will get chopped once it gets to federal court to be overturned as cruel and unusual ?
It seems to me that there is no accountability for the idiots who pass unconstitutional laws in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gots one!
I didn't read TFA, but this question still burns hot in my brain-mind.
If a state legislature passes a law that is unconstitutional, can that law be enforced?
Let's say a state legislature passes a law stating that shoplifters must have their hands chopped off, is it now legal to start choppin' hands?
If it is legal to start choppin' hands, whose heads will get chopped once it gets to federal court to be overturned as cruel and unusual?
It seems to me that there is no accountability for the idiots who pass unconstitutional laws in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28605425</id>
	<title>Screenshots?? WTF</title>
	<author>underplay16</author>
	<datestamp>1246963260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They had screenshots of his shareza folder MAJOR invasion of privacy...case closed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They had screenshots of his shareza folder MAJOR invasion of privacy...case closed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had screenshots of his shareza folder MAJOR invasion of privacy...case closed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601937</id>
	<title>Re:Too late</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1246886160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.</p></div><p>That's... really not the right use of the metaphor. My cat likes to play inside bags and needs very little inducement to go inside one. Sometimes he does it spontaneously.</p><p>I think you've confused "letting the cat out of the bag" with "putting the genie back in the bottle".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.That 's... really not the right use of the metaphor .
My cat likes to play inside bags and needs very little inducement to go inside one .
Sometimes he does it spontaneously.I think you 've confused " letting the cat out of the bag " with " putting the genie back in the bottle " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.That's... really not the right use of the metaphor.
My cat likes to play inside bags and needs very little inducement to go inside one.
Sometimes he does it spontaneously.I think you've confused "letting the cat out of the bag" with "putting the genie back in the bottle".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600673</id>
	<title>Nevermind about RIAA censorship, what about /.'s?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246879560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28605415</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>rohan972</author>
	<datestamp>1246962960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't personally understand why these sorts of court actions need to be secret, but I assume there is a reason for it.</p></div><p>The reason given is because it may taint the jury pool. When knowing facts makes the jury unsuitable, you've got a problem (Due process arguments notwithstanding). It's also because if effective defence of this type of court action becomes widely known, the RIAA will find it harder to get their way.
<br> <br>
In short, it had to be secret so the justice can be more easily perverted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't personally understand why these sorts of court actions need to be secret , but I assume there is a reason for it.The reason given is because it may taint the jury pool .
When knowing facts makes the jury unsuitable , you 've got a problem ( Due process arguments notwithstanding ) .
It 's also because if effective defence of this type of court action becomes widely known , the RIAA will find it harder to get their way .
In short , it had to be secret so the justice can be more easily perverted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't personally understand why these sorts of court actions need to be secret, but I assume there is a reason for it.The reason given is because it may taint the jury pool.
When knowing facts makes the jury unsuitable, you've got a problem (Due process arguments notwithstanding).
It's also because if effective defence of this type of court action becomes widely known, the RIAA will find it harder to get their way.
In short, it had to be secret so the justice can be more easily perverted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603605</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Dogun</author>
	<datestamp>1246898160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quoting crazy people who live in the boonies and drink their own urine because they're too good for the rest of society is well and good, but original thought has its benefits as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quoting crazy people who live in the boonies and drink their own urine because they 're too good for the rest of society is well and good , but original thought has its benefits as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quoting crazy people who live in the boonies and drink their own urine because they're too good for the rest of society is well and good, but original thought has its benefits as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28614067</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>KingBenny</author>
	<datestamp>1246961460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>no they're not. I don't care about your law. Court cases are public and therefore not subject to copyright. Anything else is dated vsia</htmltext>
<tokenext>no they 're not .
I do n't care about your law .
Court cases are public and therefore not subject to copyright .
Anything else is dated vsia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no they're not.
I don't care about your law.
Court cases are public and therefore not subject to copyright.
Anything else is dated vsia</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28609243</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1246985820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold. Yes, even when the law is stupid.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a pretty stupid law right there.</p><p>I know what motivated you to say this, but seriously... step back and think about it.  Do you REALLY want to live in a society where people continue to do stupid things, because that's the rule?  Imagine your society is composed of only four people, and the current rule is that the raft you're building must be made of straw.  You think it's stupid because you're building the raft to escape a tornado which is coming to your island.  To you STILL want to go ahead, following that stupid law?</p><p>Laws are good when they follow good principles.  When they follow bad ones, or no longer meet the requirements that created the law, then they should be torn down and replaced as quickly as possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold .
Yes , even when the law is stupid.That 's a pretty stupid law right there.I know what motivated you to say this , but seriously... step back and think about it .
Do you REALLY want to live in a society where people continue to do stupid things , because that 's the rule ?
Imagine your society is composed of only four people , and the current rule is that the raft you 're building must be made of straw .
You think it 's stupid because you 're building the raft to escape a tornado which is coming to your island .
To you STILL want to go ahead , following that stupid law ? Laws are good when they follow good principles .
When they follow bad ones , or no longer meet the requirements that created the law , then they should be torn down and replaced as quickly as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold.
Yes, even when the law is stupid.That's a pretty stupid law right there.I know what motivated you to say this, but seriously... step back and think about it.
Do you REALLY want to live in a society where people continue to do stupid things, because that's the rule?
Imagine your society is composed of only four people, and the current rule is that the raft you're building must be made of straw.
You think it's stupid because you're building the raft to escape a tornado which is coming to your island.
To you STILL want to go ahead, following that stupid law?Laws are good when they follow good principles.
When they follow bad ones, or no longer meet the requirements that created the law, then they should be torn down and replaced as quickly as possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28604743</id>
	<title>AAAAAAAUUUGHHHH ! [Re:Too late]</title>
	<author>o'reor</author>
	<datestamp>1246997880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I *know* this is Slashdot, but if I see yet another intahwebz-style lolcat-Schr&#246;dinger-cat-in-the-bag-of-worms metaphor beneath this comment... I swear I'll kill your dog.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I * know * this is Slashdot , but if I see yet another intahwebz-style lolcat-Schr   dinger-cat-in-the-bag-of-worms metaphor beneath this comment... I swear I 'll kill your dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *know* this is Slashdot, but if I see yet another intahwebz-style lolcat-Schrödinger-cat-in-the-bag-of-worms metaphor beneath this comment... I swear I'll kill your dog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28632811</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>rohan972</author>
	<datestamp>1247079480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The jury is tainted when they reach a conclusion before they know all of the facts as presented by both sides in the courtroom. The idea is that the jury is supposed to enter the case without a preconceived notion of which side is in the right.</p></div><p>Like if the jury think that if you wouldn't steal a car, you shouldn't download, because downloading is theft? The other reply to my post is pretty good. <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1293609&amp;cid=28605713" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1293609&amp;cid=28605713</a> [slashdot.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The jury is tainted when they reach a conclusion before they know all of the facts as presented by both sides in the courtroom .
The idea is that the jury is supposed to enter the case without a preconceived notion of which side is in the right.Like if the jury think that if you would n't steal a car , you should n't download , because downloading is theft ?
The other reply to my post is pretty good .
http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1293609&amp;cid = 28605713 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The jury is tainted when they reach a conclusion before they know all of the facts as presented by both sides in the courtroom.
The idea is that the jury is supposed to enter the case without a preconceived notion of which side is in the right.Like if the jury think that if you wouldn't steal a car, you shouldn't download, because downloading is theft?
The other reply to my post is pretty good.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1293609&amp;cid=28605713 [slashdot.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28606851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600531</id>
	<title>If there's anything MAFIAA are known for...</title>
	<author>Lead Butthead</author>
	<datestamp>1246878840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.</p></div></blockquote><p>If there's anything MAFIAA are know for, it's fighting a lost cause.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.If there 's anything MAFIAA are know for , it 's fighting a lost cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.If there's anything MAFIAA are know for, it's fighting a lost cause.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257</id>
	<title>RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246877400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as I dislike the RIAA, the law is with this one in this case. Even worse is that Nesson has acknowledged the fact,<p><div class="quote"><p>He labeled as &#226;oegobbledygook&#226; the felony privacy law that is punishable by up to five years in prison.</p></div><p>but has blatantly said that he's going to refuse to comply with what the law says. That's like acknowledging that your <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/lawyer-court-must-ban-all-mediasentry-evidence.ars" title="arstechnica.com">source of evidence for convictions gets its information illegally</a> [arstechnica.com], but you still choose to use it. Not that I know anyone who'd do that, but just saying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I dislike the RIAA , the law is with this one in this case .
Even worse is that Nesson has acknowledged the fact,He labeled as   oegobbledygook   the felony privacy law that is punishable by up to five years in prison.but has blatantly said that he 's going to refuse to comply with what the law says .
That 's like acknowledging that your source of evidence for convictions gets its information illegally [ arstechnica.com ] , but you still choose to use it .
Not that I know anyone who 'd do that , but just saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I dislike the RIAA, the law is with this one in this case.
Even worse is that Nesson has acknowledged the fact,He labeled as âoegobbledygookâ the felony privacy law that is punishable by up to five years in prison.but has blatantly said that he's going to refuse to comply with what the law says.
That's like acknowledging that your source of evidence for convictions gets its information illegally [arstechnica.com], but you still choose to use it.
Not that I know anyone who'd do that, but just saying.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28602455</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246889280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about just returning to Daniel J. Cloherty (via email of course dcloherty@dwyercollora.com) the 5 MP3 he wants off the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about just returning to Daniel J. Cloherty ( via email of course dcloherty @ dwyercollora.com ) the 5 MP3 he wants off the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about just returning to Daniel J. Cloherty (via email of course dcloherty@dwyercollora.com) the 5 MP3 he wants off the web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28602103</id>
	<title>Re:Too late</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1246887180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.</p></div><p>Are you sure? There must be dozens of counterexamples on Lolcats.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.Are you sure ?
There must be dozens of counterexamples on Lolcats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.Are you sure?
There must be dozens of counterexamples on Lolcats.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28607781</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246980120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe so. But seriously, at some point, people have to start following the law.</p></div><p>Only when the law serves the people.</p><p>I don't "have" to do fucking <em>anything</em>. I certainly feel ZERO obligation to follow ANY law which does not serve the people. While people interpreting for themselves which laws to follow clearly means there will be a lot of conflict between certain individuals, I think it's pretty clear that certain laws are not there to help us.</p><p>Copyright has been fucked over repeatedly until it no longer serves its original purpose. I don't think it's reasonable to follow copyright law in its current form.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold. Yes, even when the law is stupid.</p></div><p>No, not really. "Civilized" means "living in cities", it's a fucking meaningless term. Bad laws typically don't get overturned until someone breaks them and the case runs up the chain to a higher court as a result. You're either trolling, or have an agenda of preventing future positive change. Or, you know, just dumb and not paying attention to reality.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They face people like Nesson who blatantly ignore the law (since when is ignorance or "i don't agree" going to let you get away with that?), opponents who lie under oath (jammie thomas), a widespread belief that they don't deserve to get paid for their work, and more.</p></div><p>They face people like Bush who blatantly ignore the law, people like Clinton who lie under oath, a widespread belief that the justice system is completely broken and serves only the wealthy, and more.</p><p>The "system" is broken from the top down. Obeying its directives is likewise broken.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe so .
But seriously , at some point , people have to start following the law.Only when the law serves the people.I do n't " have " to do fucking anything .
I certainly feel ZERO obligation to follow ANY law which does not serve the people .
While people interpreting for themselves which laws to follow clearly means there will be a lot of conflict between certain individuals , I think it 's pretty clear that certain laws are not there to help us.Copyright has been fucked over repeatedly until it no longer serves its original purpose .
I do n't think it 's reasonable to follow copyright law in its current form.But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold .
Yes , even when the law is stupid.No , not really .
" Civilized " means " living in cities " , it 's a fucking meaningless term .
Bad laws typically do n't get overturned until someone breaks them and the case runs up the chain to a higher court as a result .
You 're either trolling , or have an agenda of preventing future positive change .
Or , you know , just dumb and not paying attention to reality.They face people like Nesson who blatantly ignore the law ( since when is ignorance or " i do n't agree " going to let you get away with that ?
) , opponents who lie under oath ( jammie thomas ) , a widespread belief that they do n't deserve to get paid for their work , and more.They face people like Bush who blatantly ignore the law , people like Clinton who lie under oath , a widespread belief that the justice system is completely broken and serves only the wealthy , and more.The " system " is broken from the top down .
Obeying its directives is likewise broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe so.
But seriously, at some point, people have to start following the law.Only when the law serves the people.I don't "have" to do fucking anything.
I certainly feel ZERO obligation to follow ANY law which does not serve the people.
While people interpreting for themselves which laws to follow clearly means there will be a lot of conflict between certain individuals, I think it's pretty clear that certain laws are not there to help us.Copyright has been fucked over repeatedly until it no longer serves its original purpose.
I don't think it's reasonable to follow copyright law in its current form.But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold.
Yes, even when the law is stupid.No, not really.
"Civilized" means "living in cities", it's a fucking meaningless term.
Bad laws typically don't get overturned until someone breaks them and the case runs up the chain to a higher court as a result.
You're either trolling, or have an agenda of preventing future positive change.
Or, you know, just dumb and not paying attention to reality.They face people like Nesson who blatantly ignore the law (since when is ignorance or "i don't agree" going to let you get away with that?
), opponents who lie under oath (jammie thomas), a widespread belief that they don't deserve to get paid for their work, and more.They face people like Bush who blatantly ignore the law, people like Clinton who lie under oath, a widespread belief that the justice system is completely broken and serves only the wealthy, and more.The "system" is broken from the top down.
Obeying its directives is likewise broken.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601341</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246883100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Consider past history. If people obeyed all laws, no matter how ridiculous, then there would be no USA (the separatists defied the dictates of Britain). At one time in Europe the Church had enforceable legal powers which didn't work so well for Galileo and others. The Civil Rights movement in the 60's was founded on disobedience (breaking laws) to highlight how laws were unjustly hurting the progression of society.<p>
Today is no different (present history). You can be pro-business without having to accept and obey laws that a large number of people consider as detrimental to society as a whole. The ability to share 'digitally' has removed the barriers that physical sharing required of 'property'. Sharing music and movies ought to be as illegal as it is to read a book or newspaper in your local library. The reality is that RIAA and MPAA are simply Luddites resisting inevitable change whereby the middleman are removed between the producers (bloggers and musicians) and consumers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider past history .
If people obeyed all laws , no matter how ridiculous , then there would be no USA ( the separatists defied the dictates of Britain ) .
At one time in Europe the Church had enforceable legal powers which did n't work so well for Galileo and others .
The Civil Rights movement in the 60 's was founded on disobedience ( breaking laws ) to highlight how laws were unjustly hurting the progression of society .
Today is no different ( present history ) .
You can be pro-business without having to accept and obey laws that a large number of people consider as detrimental to society as a whole .
The ability to share 'digitally ' has removed the barriers that physical sharing required of 'property' .
Sharing music and movies ought to be as illegal as it is to read a book or newspaper in your local library .
The reality is that RIAA and MPAA are simply Luddites resisting inevitable change whereby the middleman are removed between the producers ( bloggers and musicians ) and consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider past history.
If people obeyed all laws, no matter how ridiculous, then there would be no USA (the separatists defied the dictates of Britain).
At one time in Europe the Church had enforceable legal powers which didn't work so well for Galileo and others.
The Civil Rights movement in the 60's was founded on disobedience (breaking laws) to highlight how laws were unjustly hurting the progression of society.
Today is no different (present history).
You can be pro-business without having to accept and obey laws that a large number of people consider as detrimental to society as a whole.
The ability to share 'digitally' has removed the barriers that physical sharing required of 'property'.
Sharing music and movies ought to be as illegal as it is to read a book or newspaper in your local library.
The reality is that RIAA and MPAA are simply Luddites resisting inevitable change whereby the middleman are removed between the producers (bloggers and musicians) and consumers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601055</id>
	<title>Gotta give them credit</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246881480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are consistent if nothing else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are consistent if nothing else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are consistent if nothing else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600299</id>
	<title>Can anyone say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246877580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Streisand Effect"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Streisand Effect " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Streisand Effect"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603265</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1246895640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As much as I dislike the RIAA, the law is with this one in this case.</p></div><p>I'm not so sure that this is true.

</p><p>Is a state law (Massachusetts law making it a felony to record a conversation without prior consent of all parties) binding on a Federal Court? I think probably not; I think a Federal Court would be in the same circumstance as a VA Medical Center or other Federal reservation: by policy it would comply with local laws to the extent that these do not interfere with its mission, but there is no agreement that State law is enforceable on a Federal agency operating in the State. My understanding is that both states and the Federal government have historically gone to considerable length to avoid resolving the ambiguities of sovereignty.

</p><p>I think that the RIAA might need to do this as a separate action in a Massachusetts Court, since it is a Massachusetts law. Which would probably lead to a jurisdictional nightmare. Which is exactly the kind of thing that the courts have been attempting to avoid for 225 years or so. Some legal questions are better left undefined.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I dislike the RIAA , the law is with this one in this case.I 'm not so sure that this is true .
Is a state law ( Massachusetts law making it a felony to record a conversation without prior consent of all parties ) binding on a Federal Court ?
I think probably not ; I think a Federal Court would be in the same circumstance as a VA Medical Center or other Federal reservation : by policy it would comply with local laws to the extent that these do not interfere with its mission , but there is no agreement that State law is enforceable on a Federal agency operating in the State .
My understanding is that both states and the Federal government have historically gone to considerable length to avoid resolving the ambiguities of sovereignty .
I think that the RIAA might need to do this as a separate action in a Massachusetts Court , since it is a Massachusetts law .
Which would probably lead to a jurisdictional nightmare .
Which is exactly the kind of thing that the courts have been attempting to avoid for 225 years or so .
Some legal questions are better left undefined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I dislike the RIAA, the law is with this one in this case.I'm not so sure that this is true.
Is a state law (Massachusetts law making it a felony to record a conversation without prior consent of all parties) binding on a Federal Court?
I think probably not; I think a Federal Court would be in the same circumstance as a VA Medical Center or other Federal reservation: by policy it would comply with local laws to the extent that these do not interfere with its mission, but there is no agreement that State law is enforceable on a Federal agency operating in the State.
My understanding is that both states and the Federal government have historically gone to considerable length to avoid resolving the ambiguities of sovereignty.
I think that the RIAA might need to do this as a separate action in a Massachusetts Court, since it is a Massachusetts law.
Which would probably lead to a jurisdictional nightmare.
Which is exactly the kind of thing that the courts have been attempting to avoid for 225 years or so.
Some legal questions are better left undefined.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28604787</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1246998540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up... oh, it's already at 5.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Yep, I can't imagine what the hell he's thinking. The standard of consent for recording conversations is pretty much always "at least one side has to know". Plus, he's illegally recording the judge who's going to be ruling on his case?</p><p>The only thing that makes ANY sense at all is if he's TRYING to get the case thrown out as a mistrial. But I can't see that possibly working in his favor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up... oh , it 's already at 5. : ) Yep , I ca n't imagine what the hell he 's thinking .
The standard of consent for recording conversations is pretty much always " at least one side has to know " .
Plus , he 's illegally recording the judge who 's going to be ruling on his case ? The only thing that makes ANY sense at all is if he 's TRYING to get the case thrown out as a mistrial .
But I ca n't see that possibly working in his favor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up... oh, it's already at 5. :)Yep, I can't imagine what the hell he's thinking.
The standard of consent for recording conversations is pretty much always "at least one side has to know".
Plus, he's illegally recording the judge who's going to be ruling on his case?The only thing that makes ANY sense at all is if he's TRYING to get the case thrown out as a mistrial.
But I can't see that possibly working in his favor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600407</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1246878240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes, the law is wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes , the law is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes, the law is wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600507</id>
	<title>Well,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246878660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody get this on Wikileaks yet? While posting this is illegal, sure, posting much of anything is similarly illegal in the People's Republic of China right now, too. Not saying it'd be the right thing to do, but if the RIAA and their contemporaries are allowed to censor potentially adverse information about their practices as a matter of habit (silly, considering their tactics are no great secret), how is the general public supposed to defend themselves from future predatory litigation from these folks? Oh, silly me, of course....they're NOT. We truly have the best legal system money can buy, after all......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody get this on Wikileaks yet ?
While posting this is illegal , sure , posting much of anything is similarly illegal in the People 's Republic of China right now , too .
Not saying it 'd be the right thing to do , but if the RIAA and their contemporaries are allowed to censor potentially adverse information about their practices as a matter of habit ( silly , considering their tactics are no great secret ) , how is the general public supposed to defend themselves from future predatory litigation from these folks ?
Oh , silly me , of course....they 're NOT .
We truly have the best legal system money can buy , after all..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody get this on Wikileaks yet?
While posting this is illegal, sure, posting much of anything is similarly illegal in the People's Republic of China right now, too.
Not saying it'd be the right thing to do, but if the RIAA and their contemporaries are allowed to censor potentially adverse information about their practices as a matter of habit (silly, considering their tactics are no great secret), how is the general public supposed to defend themselves from future predatory litigation from these folks?
Oh, silly me, of course....they're NOT.
We truly have the best legal system money can buy, after all......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600489</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA is right on this one.</title>
	<author>omeomi</author>
	<datestamp>1246878600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If he acknowledges that he is violating the law, and will continue to do so regardless, he is also seemingly willing to accept any consequences that result from his actions, so I see no problem. He is partaking in Civil Disobedience. Part of that is accepting the consequences of your actions. Not that I agree or disagree with his decision. If he has a constitutional argument, maybe he'll be able to change the law, but I'm sure he realizes he's making a gamble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If he acknowledges that he is violating the law , and will continue to do so regardless , he is also seemingly willing to accept any consequences that result from his actions , so I see no problem .
He is partaking in Civil Disobedience .
Part of that is accepting the consequences of your actions .
Not that I agree or disagree with his decision .
If he has a constitutional argument , maybe he 'll be able to change the law , but I 'm sure he realizes he 's making a gamble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he acknowledges that he is violating the law, and will continue to do so regardless, he is also seemingly willing to accept any consequences that result from his actions, so I see no problem.
He is partaking in Civil Disobedience.
Part of that is accepting the consequences of your actions.
Not that I agree or disagree with his decision.
If he has a constitutional argument, maybe he'll be able to change the law, but I'm sure he realizes he's making a gamble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28609243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28607997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28634339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28602437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28602103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28602455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28608607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28604787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28632811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28606851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28605415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28605589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28602145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28609005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28609077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28614067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28604743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28604307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_2034213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28607781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_2034213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_2034213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28604787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28614067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600523
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603505
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600929
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28607781
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28605415
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28606851
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28632811
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28605589
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28609005
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601005
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603605
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28602437
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601053
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600747
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601341
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600709
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601161
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28609243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28602455
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_2034213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28634339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_2034213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_2034213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28609077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_2034213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28608607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28602145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_2034213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600461
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28607997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28601937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28604743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28602103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_2034213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28600507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_2034213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28603403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_2034213.28604307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
