<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_07_049252</id>
	<title>Jammie Thomas Moves To Strike RIAA $1.92M Verdict</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246989360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">NewYorkCountryLawyer</a> writes <i>"Jammie Thomas-Rasset has <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/defendant-moves-for-new-trial-in.html">made a motion for a new trial</a>, seeking to vacate the $1.92 million judgment entered against her for infringement of 24 MP3 files, in <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=Virgin\_v\_Thomas">Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset</a>. Her <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/virgin\_thomas\_090706DeftsMotNewTrial.pdf">attorneys' brief</a> (PDF) argues, among other things, that the 'monstrous' sized verdict violates the Due Process Clause, consistent with 100 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence, since it is grossly disproportionate to any actual damages sustained. It further argues that, since the RIAA elected to offer no evidence of actual damages, either as an alternative to statutory damages, or to buttress the fairness of a statutory damages award, the verdict, if it is to be reduced, must be reduced to zero."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " Jammie Thomas-Rasset has made a motion for a new trial , seeking to vacate the $ 1.92 million judgment entered against her for infringement of 24 MP3 files , in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset. Her attorneys ' brief ( PDF ) argues , among other things , that the 'monstrous ' sized verdict violates the Due Process Clause , consistent with 100 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence , since it is grossly disproportionate to any actual damages sustained .
It further argues that , since the RIAA elected to offer no evidence of actual damages , either as an alternative to statutory damages , or to buttress the fairness of a statutory damages award , the verdict , if it is to be reduced , must be reduced to zero .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Jammie Thomas-Rasset has made a motion for a new trial, seeking to vacate the $1.92 million judgment entered against her for infringement of 24 MP3 files, in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset. Her attorneys' brief (PDF) argues, among other things, that the 'monstrous' sized verdict violates the Due Process Clause, consistent with 100 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence, since it is grossly disproportionate to any actual damages sustained.
It further argues that, since the RIAA elected to offer no evidence of actual damages, either as an alternative to statutory damages, or to buttress the fairness of a statutory damages award, the verdict, if it is to be reduced, must be reduced to zero.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407</id>
	<title>Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246907280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>are used when actual damages cannot be determined. Since the RIAA was able to show that there was distribution (the jurors bought it), they can seek statutory damages. They have no idea how many copies Ms. Thomas assisted in making. The law is crystal clear on this. In copyright law, plaintiffs can seek statutory damages when actual damages cannot be determined.

I'm in no way defending the law, but it is clear. If this judge were to throw this out, it would be a case of exceptional judicial activism. I applaud his plea after the first trial to Congress to fix this problem. The courts have no authority to change something like this.

I've been saying this since before her second trial, she should have settled, and she still should. The RIAA has gone out of its way to try to reach a settlement. In fact, according to Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/jammie-thomas-challenges-monstrous-192m-p2p-verdict.ars) they are still willing to settle for less than the Copyright Act allows (24 *750 = 18,000). You got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. She could get out of this surprisingly reasonably, but instead, she wants to hit a home run.</htmltext>
<tokenext>are used when actual damages can not be determined .
Since the RIAA was able to show that there was distribution ( the jurors bought it ) , they can seek statutory damages .
They have no idea how many copies Ms. Thomas assisted in making .
The law is crystal clear on this .
In copyright law , plaintiffs can seek statutory damages when actual damages can not be determined .
I 'm in no way defending the law , but it is clear .
If this judge were to throw this out , it would be a case of exceptional judicial activism .
I applaud his plea after the first trial to Congress to fix this problem .
The courts have no authority to change something like this .
I 've been saying this since before her second trial , she should have settled , and she still should .
The RIAA has gone out of its way to try to reach a settlement .
In fact , according to Ars Technica ( http : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/jammie-thomas-challenges-monstrous-192m-p2p-verdict.ars ) they are still willing to settle for less than the Copyright Act allows ( 24 * 750 = 18,000 ) .
You got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them .
She could get out of this surprisingly reasonably , but instead , she wants to hit a home run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are used when actual damages cannot be determined.
Since the RIAA was able to show that there was distribution (the jurors bought it), they can seek statutory damages.
They have no idea how many copies Ms. Thomas assisted in making.
The law is crystal clear on this.
In copyright law, plaintiffs can seek statutory damages when actual damages cannot be determined.
I'm in no way defending the law, but it is clear.
If this judge were to throw this out, it would be a case of exceptional judicial activism.
I applaud his plea after the first trial to Congress to fix this problem.
The courts have no authority to change something like this.
I've been saying this since before her second trial, she should have settled, and she still should.
The RIAA has gone out of its way to try to reach a settlement.
In fact, according to Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/jammie-thomas-challenges-monstrous-192m-p2p-verdict.ars) they are still willing to settle for less than the Copyright Act allows (24 *750 = 18,000).
You got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them.
She could get out of this surprisingly reasonably, but instead, she wants to hit a home run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606143</id>
	<title>Freud calling</title>
	<author>nem75</author>
	<datestamp>1246971840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a hint, by "resistance", "A force that tends to oppose or retard motion." was meant.</p></div><p>Anyone else read that as "A force that tends to oppose <b>a</b> retard motion"?</p><p>... 100\% with you, bro!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a hint , by " resistance " , " A force that tends to oppose or retard motion .
" was meant.Anyone else read that as " A force that tends to oppose a retard motion " ? .. .
100 \ % with you , bro !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a hint, by "resistance", "A force that tends to oppose or retard motion.
" was meant.Anyone else read that as "A force that tends to oppose a retard motion"?...
100\% with you, bro!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28605159</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>Sobrique</author>
	<datestamp>1246959420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the other hand, if your speeding fine was $1.92M, then I think you might find it worth the effort to contest it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , if your speeding fine was $ 1.92M , then I think you might find it worth the effort to contest it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, if your speeding fine was $1.92M, then I think you might find it worth the effort to contest it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606993</id>
	<title>Re:Some people should realize that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no... You just used CBS's intellectual property without permission and you will be sued for 1M$.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no... You just used CBS 's intellectual property without permission and you will be sued for 1M $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no... You just used CBS's intellectual property without permission and you will be sued for 1M$.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28607469</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246978980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So it could have been zero?</p></div><p>Yes.  The RIAA did not demonstrate that she had actually uploaded any copies of the songs.  The defence lawyers, for some reason, did not challenge this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it could have been zero ? Yes .
The RIAA did not demonstrate that she had actually uploaded any copies of the songs .
The defence lawyers , for some reason , did not challenge this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it could have been zero?Yes.
The RIAA did not demonstrate that she had actually uploaded any copies of the songs.
The defence lawyers, for some reason, did not challenge this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28611025</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>agbinfo</author>
	<datestamp>1246992720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess I'll have to stop playing the radio in my backyard.</p><p>That "may" be considered "making the songs available" and I can't even afford to pay the fine for a single hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess I 'll have to stop playing the radio in my backyard.That " may " be considered " making the songs available " and I ca n't even afford to pay the fine for a single hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess I'll have to stop playing the radio in my backyard.That "may" be considered "making the songs available" and I can't even afford to pay the fine for a single hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371</id>
	<title>Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>ringbarer</author>
	<datestamp>1246906620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't do the crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't do the crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't do the crime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606455</id>
	<title>Re:Some people should realize that...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1246973880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RIAA are definitely retards, that's what I got out of that comment   : )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA are definitely retards , that 's what I got out of that comment : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA are definitely retards, that's what I got out of that comment   : )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604855</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1246999200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No I wouldn't, if I was clearly and obviously guilty. I've been given a speeding fine before. I was speeding. There were a ton of mitigating factors, but at the end of the day, I was speeding, so I paid the fine. I could have wasted a year of my life arguing in court, but I have a life to get on with, and I knew I'd broken the law.<br>Somehow jammie believes her own hype and somehow convinced herself she is innocent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No I would n't , if I was clearly and obviously guilty .
I 've been given a speeding fine before .
I was speeding .
There were a ton of mitigating factors , but at the end of the day , I was speeding , so I paid the fine .
I could have wasted a year of my life arguing in court , but I have a life to get on with , and I knew I 'd broken the law.Somehow jammie believes her own hype and somehow convinced herself she is innocent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No I wouldn't, if I was clearly and obviously guilty.
I've been given a speeding fine before.
I was speeding.
There were a ton of mitigating factors, but at the end of the day, I was speeding, so I paid the fine.
I could have wasted a year of my life arguing in court, but I have a life to get on with, and I knew I'd broken the law.Somehow jammie believes her own hype and somehow convinced herself she is innocent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>adri</author>
	<datestamp>1246908360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Luckily, it is people like this who are the reason why laws change.</p><p>The RIAA have their low-risk win adding to their warchest of successfully run litigation if she settles. Now they -have- to engage the courts as much as they can to win. They -have- to publicly lobby, they -have- to look the bad guy to ${PUBLIC}. They may win - and it'd be a big win - but they may lose, and losing at such a high level is quite a setback.</p><p>At the end of the day, she could've settled, but she's chosen to stand and fight. Would you do the same, given the circumstances?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily , it is people like this who are the reason why laws change.The RIAA have their low-risk win adding to their warchest of successfully run litigation if she settles .
Now they -have- to engage the courts as much as they can to win .
They -have- to publicly lobby , they -have- to look the bad guy to $ { PUBLIC } .
They may win - and it 'd be a big win - but they may lose , and losing at such a high level is quite a setback.At the end of the day , she could 've settled , but she 's chosen to stand and fight .
Would you do the same , given the circumstances ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily, it is people like this who are the reason why laws change.The RIAA have their low-risk win adding to their warchest of successfully run litigation if she settles.
Now they -have- to engage the courts as much as they can to win.
They -have- to publicly lobby, they -have- to look the bad guy to ${PUBLIC}.
They may win - and it'd be a big win - but they may lose, and losing at such a high level is quite a setback.At the end of the day, she could've settled, but she's chosen to stand and fight.
Would you do the same, given the circumstances?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28607249</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1246978200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Juries can use common sense if the law says otherwise.</p><p>In this case they were either idiots or pissed off at the lady.</p><p>Or doing some kind of double kung fu think that such a gross award would destroy this particular law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Juries can use common sense if the law says otherwise.In this case they were either idiots or pissed off at the lady.Or doing some kind of double kung fu think that such a gross award would destroy this particular law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Juries can use common sense if the law says otherwise.In this case they were either idiots or pissed off at the lady.Or doing some kind of double kung fu think that such a gross award would destroy this particular law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28621985</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]<br>At the end of the day, she could've settled, but she's chosen to stand and fight. Would you do the same, given the circumstances?<br>[/quote]</p><p>I would have seriously considered fighting before this ruling (as many people would have).</p><p>But after seeing this I would settle in a heart beat (as many people will now).</p><p>Whats more scary is that the RIAA can now demand much much higher settlement fees and most people after seeing this will probably still settle out of fear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] At the end of the day , she could 've settled , but she 's chosen to stand and fight .
Would you do the same , given the circumstances ?
[ /quote ] I would have seriously considered fighting before this ruling ( as many people would have ) .But after seeing this I would settle in a heart beat ( as many people will now ) .Whats more scary is that the RIAA can now demand much much higher settlement fees and most people after seeing this will probably still settle out of fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]At the end of the day, she could've settled, but she's chosen to stand and fight.
Would you do the same, given the circumstances?
[/quote]I would have seriously considered fighting before this ruling (as many people would have).But after seeing this I would settle in a heart beat (as many people will now).Whats more scary is that the RIAA can now demand much much higher settlement fees and most people after seeing this will probably still settle out of fear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604623</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246909920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, as the OP explained, judges aren't allowed to use common sense if a law says otherwise. Ultimately, people vote to elect a government that will make laws telling the judges what to do. This is how the system works.</p><p>Higher court judges have more discretion at their disposal with regards to using common sense, I would bet she will still be found guilty but the amount to pay could be lowered.</p><p>Lower court judges tend to stick to the text of the law. Nothing is worse for a lower court judge career than getting his sentence overruled by a higher court judge because he did not follow the text of the law. As long as he stick to the text of the law, he is safe.</p><p>It is easier for higher court judges to establish jurisprudence. It is more risky for lower court judges although it occurs sometimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , as the OP explained , judges are n't allowed to use common sense if a law says otherwise .
Ultimately , people vote to elect a government that will make laws telling the judges what to do .
This is how the system works.Higher court judges have more discretion at their disposal with regards to using common sense , I would bet she will still be found guilty but the amount to pay could be lowered.Lower court judges tend to stick to the text of the law .
Nothing is worse for a lower court judge career than getting his sentence overruled by a higher court judge because he did not follow the text of the law .
As long as he stick to the text of the law , he is safe.It is easier for higher court judges to establish jurisprudence .
It is more risky for lower court judges although it occurs sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, as the OP explained, judges aren't allowed to use common sense if a law says otherwise.
Ultimately, people vote to elect a government that will make laws telling the judges what to do.
This is how the system works.Higher court judges have more discretion at their disposal with regards to using common sense, I would bet she will still be found guilty but the amount to pay could be lowered.Lower court judges tend to stick to the text of the law.
Nothing is worse for a lower court judge career than getting his sentence overruled by a higher court judge because he did not follow the text of the law.
As long as he stick to the text of the law, he is safe.It is easier for higher court judges to establish jurisprudence.
It is more risky for lower court judges although it occurs sometimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606179</id>
	<title>...judges aren't allowed to use common sense...</title>
	<author>Finsterwald P Ogleth</author>
	<datestamp>1246972200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Common sense comes in through "Common Man" theory, I believe.   The issue you state is a fundamental difference in what we would like the law to do, and what it does.  On the SCOTUS is emblazoned the phrase "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW".  Equal has nothing to with what's FAIR.  When one cuts a piece of pie exactly in half, that does does not take into account that one person getting a "cut" may be more hungry than the other person?  Considering "hunger" in the splitting process falls into the realm of deciding "FAIR", not "EQUAL", outcomes.

The pie analogy can be used to show the difference between "fair" and "equal" - Two selfish, pre-teen siblings argue over who will get the bigger piece.  The father intervenes and says to the brother "you cut the pie" and, turning to the sister, says, "you choose first".

My, that puts FAIR and EQUAL in perspective, doesn't it?  Laws are meant to provide EQUAL protection, but not FAIR protection.  FAIR is a MORAL issue...and it is up to each of us to decide what's fair, not the courts.  But, base that decision of fairness from the "other side" of the issue, not your side.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Common sense comes in through " Common Man " theory , I believe .
The issue you state is a fundamental difference in what we would like the law to do , and what it does .
On the SCOTUS is emblazoned the phrase " EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW " .
Equal has nothing to with what 's FAIR .
When one cuts a piece of pie exactly in half , that does does not take into account that one person getting a " cut " may be more hungry than the other person ?
Considering " hunger " in the splitting process falls into the realm of deciding " FAIR " , not " EQUAL " , outcomes .
The pie analogy can be used to show the difference between " fair " and " equal " - Two selfish , pre-teen siblings argue over who will get the bigger piece .
The father intervenes and says to the brother " you cut the pie " and , turning to the sister , says , " you choose first " .
My , that puts FAIR and EQUAL in perspective , does n't it ?
Laws are meant to provide EQUAL protection , but not FAIR protection .
FAIR is a MORAL issue...and it is up to each of us to decide what 's fair , not the courts .
But , base that decision of fairness from the " other side " of the issue , not your side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Common sense comes in through "Common Man" theory, I believe.
The issue you state is a fundamental difference in what we would like the law to do, and what it does.
On the SCOTUS is emblazoned the phrase "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW".
Equal has nothing to with what's FAIR.
When one cuts a piece of pie exactly in half, that does does not take into account that one person getting a "cut" may be more hungry than the other person?
Considering "hunger" in the splitting process falls into the realm of deciding "FAIR", not "EQUAL", outcomes.
The pie analogy can be used to show the difference between "fair" and "equal" - Two selfish, pre-teen siblings argue over who will get the bigger piece.
The father intervenes and says to the brother "you cut the pie" and, turning to the sister, says, "you choose first".
My, that puts FAIR and EQUAL in perspective, doesn't it?
Laws are meant to provide EQUAL protection, but not FAIR protection.
FAIR is a MORAL issue...and it is up to each of us to decide what's fair, not the courts.
But, base that decision of fairness from the "other side" of the issue, not your side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28609061</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>shoemilk</author>
	<datestamp>1246985160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I refer you to this <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1293953&amp;cid=28604789" title="slashdot.org">post</a> [slashdot.org] and this <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1293953&amp;cid=28604845" title="slashdot.org">post</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I refer you to this post [ slashdot.org ] and this post [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refer you to this post [slashdot.org] and this post [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604807</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246998720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"They have no idea how many copies Ms. Thomas assisted in making."<br><br>So it could have been zero?<br><br>So I am with my cousin Bob, whom I haven't seen in almost a year.  He requests a drive to the store, since he's had several beer and I've only had one.  I give him one.  Seems he's a bit of a low life and he robs the store, killing the clerk.  He comes out and we leave.  The clerk had time to hit the silent alarm before dieing and we are stopped a few blocks away.<br><br>I'm charged with murder and threatened with a death sentence. Yet I didn't know anything was going to happen - and didn't even realize anything until we stopped.  Do I take the 40 - 50 year plea just because someone deems it fair?   Reasonable chance the jury won't believe that  I "knew nothing" and that I may end up prison, or worse.  But sometime in life you have to take a stand.  You can only applaud someone brave enough too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" They have no idea how many copies Ms. Thomas assisted in making .
" So it could have been zero ? So I am with my cousin Bob , whom I have n't seen in almost a year .
He requests a drive to the store , since he 's had several beer and I 've only had one .
I give him one .
Seems he 's a bit of a low life and he robs the store , killing the clerk .
He comes out and we leave .
The clerk had time to hit the silent alarm before dieing and we are stopped a few blocks away.I 'm charged with murder and threatened with a death sentence .
Yet I did n't know anything was going to happen - and did n't even realize anything until we stopped .
Do I take the 40 - 50 year plea just because someone deems it fair ?
Reasonable chance the jury wo n't believe that I " knew nothing " and that I may end up prison , or worse .
But sometime in life you have to take a stand .
You can only applaud someone brave enough too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They have no idea how many copies Ms. Thomas assisted in making.
"So it could have been zero?So I am with my cousin Bob, whom I haven't seen in almost a year.
He requests a drive to the store, since he's had several beer and I've only had one.
I give him one.
Seems he's a bit of a low life and he robs the store, killing the clerk.
He comes out and we leave.
The clerk had time to hit the silent alarm before dieing and we are stopped a few blocks away.I'm charged with murder and threatened with a death sentence.
Yet I didn't know anything was going to happen - and didn't even realize anything until we stopped.
Do I take the 40 - 50 year plea just because someone deems it fair?
Reasonable chance the jury won't believe that  I "knew nothing" and that I may end up prison, or worse.
But sometime in life you have to take a stand.
You can only applaud someone brave enough too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606823</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1246976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it backfired on the RIAA.  They are beating up on a mother of 4 and everyone agrees that the is a ridiculous judgment.  I would even go so far as to say the RIAA has been begging Jamie to take a reduced settlement so they can say what great guys they are and still wave their judgment around.  The backlash is taking root and people are really starting to stop buying RIAA member music.  I have seen posing on <a href="http://riaaradar.com/" title="riaaradar.com">http://riaaradar.com/</a> [riaaradar.com] more than once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it backfired on the RIAA .
They are beating up on a mother of 4 and everyone agrees that the is a ridiculous judgment .
I would even go so far as to say the RIAA has been begging Jamie to take a reduced settlement so they can say what great guys they are and still wave their judgment around .
The backlash is taking root and people are really starting to stop buying RIAA member music .
I have seen posing on http : //riaaradar.com/ [ riaaradar.com ] more than once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it backfired on the RIAA.
They are beating up on a mother of 4 and everyone agrees that the is a ridiculous judgment.
I would even go so far as to say the RIAA has been begging Jamie to take a reduced settlement so they can say what great guys they are and still wave their judgment around.
The backlash is taking root and people are really starting to stop buying RIAA member music.
I have seen posing on http://riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com] more than once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604687</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't do the rhyme<br>If you're retarded</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't do the rhymeIf you 're retarded</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't do the rhymeIf you're retarded</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28613359</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>FredMenace</author>
	<datestamp>1246958700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus, now even if the RIAA wins, they lose, as most intelligent people who hear about this will think "WTF???" And with the awards getting larger and the case dragging on for longer, more and more people hear about it. Possibly including Congress, some of whom might start to think "maybe this has gone a little too far".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , now even if the RIAA wins , they lose , as most intelligent people who hear about this will think " WTF ? ? ?
" And with the awards getting larger and the case dragging on for longer , more and more people hear about it .
Possibly including Congress , some of whom might start to think " maybe this has gone a little too far " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, now even if the RIAA wins, they lose, as most intelligent people who hear about this will think "WTF???
" And with the awards getting larger and the case dragging on for longer, more and more people hear about it.
Possibly including Congress, some of whom might start to think "maybe this has gone a little too far".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28608025</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>Zontar\_Thing\_From\_Ve</author>
	<datestamp>1246981020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets.  $1.9 million because I <i>may</i> be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40.  Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone's life over.  Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.</p></div><p>1) The problem is not with the legal system, per se, in my opinion.  It's with the <b> jury </b> part of the legal system.  I've said this before, but it's still how I feel - the problem with this case is that the defendant has apparently engaged in willful behavior that makes her look dishonest to the jury.  She has twice not fully informed her lawyers of everything she did.  Basically I see the defendant as a delusional woman who thinks that by simply fighting she can beat the RIAA.  I think the most recent trial proved that no jury is ever going to find in her favor.  Yes, certainly the damages are absolutely insane, but that's the fault of the jury.  Had she asked for a bench trial, I'm sure she still would have lost but the damages would have been a lot more reasonable.  She and her attorneys have been taking jury trails because, as someone else said, she wants to hit a home run.  That is, to get out without paying a dime.  It seems to me based on what I read about the trial that she clearly did download songs using an ID that only belonged to her.  There just really is no realistic chance she is ever going to get cleared no matter how many trials she gets.<br>
2) The infamous Stallworth case (the DUI death) is a bad example to cite.  Basically what happened was that yes, Stallworth was DUI for sure, but the death was caused because the pedestrian essentially jumped in front of the car.  If he had been driving the speed limit and not been drunk the accident would still have happened.  The accident was considered to be 100\% the fault of the pedestrian and that's why Stallworth isn't going to jail for very long.  I know people would like to believe that this crazy, drunk football player was weaving all over the road and just ran down an innocent pedestrian, but that's now how it happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets .
$ 1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40 .
Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone 's life over .
Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.1 ) The problem is not with the legal system , per se , in my opinion .
It 's with the jury part of the legal system .
I 've said this before , but it 's still how I feel - the problem with this case is that the defendant has apparently engaged in willful behavior that makes her look dishonest to the jury .
She has twice not fully informed her lawyers of everything she did .
Basically I see the defendant as a delusional woman who thinks that by simply fighting she can beat the RIAA .
I think the most recent trial proved that no jury is ever going to find in her favor .
Yes , certainly the damages are absolutely insane , but that 's the fault of the jury .
Had she asked for a bench trial , I 'm sure she still would have lost but the damages would have been a lot more reasonable .
She and her attorneys have been taking jury trails because , as someone else said , she wants to hit a home run .
That is , to get out without paying a dime .
It seems to me based on what I read about the trial that she clearly did download songs using an ID that only belonged to her .
There just really is no realistic chance she is ever going to get cleared no matter how many trials she gets .
2 ) The infamous Stallworth case ( the DUI death ) is a bad example to cite .
Basically what happened was that yes , Stallworth was DUI for sure , but the death was caused because the pedestrian essentially jumped in front of the car .
If he had been driving the speed limit and not been drunk the accident would still have happened .
The accident was considered to be 100 \ % the fault of the pedestrian and that 's why Stallworth is n't going to jail for very long .
I know people would like to believe that this crazy , drunk football player was weaving all over the road and just ran down an innocent pedestrian , but that 's now how it happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets.
$1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40.
Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone's life over.
Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.1) The problem is not with the legal system, per se, in my opinion.
It's with the  jury  part of the legal system.
I've said this before, but it's still how I feel - the problem with this case is that the defendant has apparently engaged in willful behavior that makes her look dishonest to the jury.
She has twice not fully informed her lawyers of everything she did.
Basically I see the defendant as a delusional woman who thinks that by simply fighting she can beat the RIAA.
I think the most recent trial proved that no jury is ever going to find in her favor.
Yes, certainly the damages are absolutely insane, but that's the fault of the jury.
Had she asked for a bench trial, I'm sure she still would have lost but the damages would have been a lot more reasonable.
She and her attorneys have been taking jury trails because, as someone else said, she wants to hit a home run.
That is, to get out without paying a dime.
It seems to me based on what I read about the trial that she clearly did download songs using an ID that only belonged to her.
There just really is no realistic chance she is ever going to get cleared no matter how many trials she gets.
2) The infamous Stallworth case (the DUI death) is a bad example to cite.
Basically what happened was that yes, Stallworth was DUI for sure, but the death was caused because the pedestrian essentially jumped in front of the car.
If he had been driving the speed limit and not been drunk the accident would still have happened.
The accident was considered to be 100\% the fault of the pedestrian and that's why Stallworth isn't going to jail for very long.
I know people would like to believe that this crazy, drunk football player was weaving all over the road and just ran down an innocent pedestrian, but that's now how it happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28616053</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1246972380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps if this was a crime and in a criminal court, the fine wouldn't have been so high.</p><p>There is no crime here, there is a civil infringement being treated as a crime hence the lack of due process claim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps if this was a crime and in a criminal court , the fine would n't have been so high.There is no crime here , there is a civil infringement being treated as a crime hence the lack of due process claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps if this was a crime and in a criminal court, the fine wouldn't have been so high.There is no crime here, there is a civil infringement being treated as a crime hence the lack of due process claim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604703</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so long as you play in the NFL, you can kill someone in a DUI crash and do 30 days.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; this woman stole some songs.  by doing so, others may have been able to steal those songs too.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; however, nobody died.  the songs are undamaged.  the artists are still fucking rich.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; the fact that lawyers can get away with this allows me to look more softly upon murderers.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; when you break justice anywhere, you break it everywhere.  this madness must end soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so long as you play in the NFL , you can kill someone in a DUI crash and do 30 days .
    this woman stole some songs .
by doing so , others may have been able to steal those songs too .
    however , nobody died .
the songs are undamaged .
the artists are still fucking rich .
    the fact that lawyers can get away with this allows me to look more softly upon murderers .
    when you break justice anywhere , you break it everywhere .
this madness must end soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so long as you play in the NFL, you can kill someone in a DUI crash and do 30 days.
    this woman stole some songs.
by doing so, others may have been able to steal those songs too.
    however, nobody died.
the songs are undamaged.
the artists are still fucking rich.
    the fact that lawyers can get away with this allows me to look more softly upon murderers.
    when you break justice anywhere, you break it everywhere.
this madness must end soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28607827</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>mooingyak</author>
	<datestamp>1246980300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>so long as you play in the NFL, you can kill someone in a DUI crash and do 30 days.</p></div><p>However, you need to be very careful not to shoot yourself in the leg, as that is utterly unforgivable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so long as you play in the NFL , you can kill someone in a DUI crash and do 30 days.However , you need to be very careful not to shoot yourself in the leg , as that is utterly unforgivable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so long as you play in the NFL, you can kill someone in a DUI crash and do 30 days.However, you need to be very careful not to shoot yourself in the leg, as that is utterly unforgivable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28605631</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>Ofloo</author>
	<datestamp>1246965480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is more if you are speeding, whatever usually you are aware that you are doing it, but when you are downloading a song how are you supposed to know, some songs are allowed to be downloaded, so instead of prosecuting the downloader which is just as much a victim,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. they should prosecute the one who is providing it instead,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. or at least they should provide a public list on songs that are not legal to download,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. by name that is,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. or at least some sort of system that allows one to check if the song they download is legal or not,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and if they ever do provide such a list on the net they should at least promote it properly,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..

Penalty should only be for those who are aware they are doing something wrong, there is no point punishing people who are not aware,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. this would be the same as punishing some autistic boy because he crossed a red light, small child that touches a girls ass,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. if someone is not aware<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. punishment is ridicules.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is more if you are speeding , whatever usually you are aware that you are doing it , but when you are downloading a song how are you supposed to know , some songs are allowed to be downloaded , so instead of prosecuting the downloader which is just as much a victim , .. they should prosecute the one who is providing it instead , .. or at least they should provide a public list on songs that are not legal to download , .. by name that is , .. or at least some sort of system that allows one to check if the song they download is legal or not , .. and if they ever do provide such a list on the net they should at least promote it properly , . . Penalty should only be for those who are aware they are doing something wrong , there is no point punishing people who are not aware , .. this would be the same as punishing some autistic boy because he crossed a red light , small child that touches a girls ass , .. if someone is not aware .. punishment is ridicules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is more if you are speeding, whatever usually you are aware that you are doing it, but when you are downloading a song how are you supposed to know, some songs are allowed to be downloaded, so instead of prosecuting the downloader which is just as much a victim, .. they should prosecute the one who is providing it instead, .. or at least they should provide a public list on songs that are not legal to download, .. by name that is, .. or at least some sort of system that allows one to check if the song they download is legal or not, .. and if they ever do provide such a list on the net they should at least promote it properly, ..

Penalty should only be for those who are aware they are doing something wrong, there is no point punishing people who are not aware, .. this would be the same as punishing some autistic boy because he crossed a red light, small child that touches a girls ass, .. if someone is not aware .. punishment is ridicules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28608159</id>
	<title>Re:Some people should realize that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246981620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Precedence, ah precedence and resistance<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>"Her attorneys' brief (PDF) argues, among other things, that the 'monstrous' sized verdict violates the Due Process Clause, consistent with 100 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence, since it is grossly disproportionate to any actual damages sustained"<br>The Judiciary just looked at the precedence set when the J state smashed G*za in January. That redefined proportionality, don't you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Precedence , ah precedence and resistance ... " Her attorneys ' brief ( PDF ) argues , among other things , that the 'monstrous ' sized verdict violates the Due Process Clause , consistent with 100 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence , since it is grossly disproportionate to any actual damages sustained " The Judiciary just looked at the precedence set when the J state smashed G * za in January .
That redefined proportionality , do n't you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Precedence, ah precedence and resistance ..."Her attorneys' brief (PDF) argues, among other things, that the 'monstrous' sized verdict violates the Due Process Clause, consistent with 100 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence, since it is grossly disproportionate to any actual damages sustained"The Judiciary just looked at the precedence set when the J state smashed G*za in January.
That redefined proportionality, don't you think?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28619289</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247048820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nope, as the OP explained, judges aren't allowed to use common sense if a law says otherwise. </p></div><p>Then its time to revise the law. If common sense isn't allowed in the law then the law is stupid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , as the OP explained , judges are n't allowed to use common sense if a law says otherwise .
Then its time to revise the law .
If common sense is n't allowed in the law then the law is stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, as the OP explained, judges aren't allowed to use common sense if a law says otherwise.
Then its time to revise the law.
If common sense isn't allowed in the law then the law is stupid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604363</id>
	<title>Some people should realize that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Resistance is futile in some cases<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p><p>Disclaimer: The above sentence was intentionally left ambiguous if we relate to TFA context. As a hint, by "resistance",<br>"A force that tends to oppose or retard motion." was meant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Resistance is futile in some cases ; - ) ) Disclaimer : The above sentence was intentionally left ambiguous if we relate to TFA context .
As a hint , by " resistance " , " A force that tends to oppose or retard motion .
" was meant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Resistance is futile in some cases ;-))Disclaimer: The above sentence was intentionally left ambiguous if we relate to TFA context.
As a hint, by "resistance","A force that tends to oppose or retard motion.
" was meant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606357</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246973220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The artists are rich?  You mean the labels are rich.  The artists don't get crap from album sales nor will they from this settlement.  Don't confuse the two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The artists are rich ?
You mean the labels are rich .
The artists do n't get crap from album sales nor will they from this settlement .
Do n't confuse the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The artists are rich?
You mean the labels are rich.
The artists don't get crap from album sales nor will they from this settlement.
Don't confuse the two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604983</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246957320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. It ties up their resources and I'm fucked either way. If I settle, I'm down more money than I can pay, just as well if I don't. So where's my advantage if I allow them to free their resources up for the next case? Gimme something I want if you want me to let you reuse your lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
It ties up their resources and I 'm fucked either way .
If I settle , I 'm down more money than I can pay , just as well if I do n't .
So where 's my advantage if I allow them to free their resources up for the next case ?
Gim me something I want if you want me to let you reuse your lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
It ties up their resources and I'm fucked either way.
If I settle, I'm down more money than I can pay, just as well if I don't.
So where's my advantage if I allow them to free their resources up for the next case?
Gimme something I want if you want me to let you reuse your lawyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28605873</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1246969020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nah, in this case it would be more like you drove your cousin Bob to the store after he said he felt like he was going to rob it (though maybe you thought it was a joke).  You stay in the car and aren't really sure what goes on inside, he comes back out,  you leave and get arrested a few blocks away and charged.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , in this case it would be more like you drove your cousin Bob to the store after he said he felt like he was going to rob it ( though maybe you thought it was a joke ) .
You stay in the car and are n't really sure what goes on inside , he comes back out , you leave and get arrested a few blocks away and charged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, in this case it would be more like you drove your cousin Bob to the store after he said he felt like he was going to rob it (though maybe you thought it was a joke).
You stay in the car and aren't really sure what goes on inside, he comes back out,  you leave and get arrested a few blocks away and charged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28610755</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>flibuste</author>
	<datestamp>1246991820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, you and all who claim that's a difference in treatment just don't understand. Because you do not know the facts and the details of how things happened, you can't really discuss it and shout injustice to the world, only reacting with your own feelings.<p>
The reason why there is a court process is exactly to establish FACTS that are not obvious and try to find some truth among all the various points of view of disputing parties. Apparently the only wrongdoing of that NFL guy was driving drunk, but that was not the cause of the accident.</p><p>Reading a bit more, the 59 years old dad was just another stupid candidate for the Darwin Awards. Trying to cross a 6 lane highway is simply suicide. Not worth putting someone else in jail for life because of your own stupid actions, is it? That is my point of view, and it has nothing to do with million of dollars for 24 worthless songs from so-called "artists" of the 21 century. And that's all I know about this case so I just can't judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you and all who claim that 's a difference in treatment just do n't understand .
Because you do not know the facts and the details of how things happened , you ca n't really discuss it and shout injustice to the world , only reacting with your own feelings .
The reason why there is a court process is exactly to establish FACTS that are not obvious and try to find some truth among all the various points of view of disputing parties .
Apparently the only wrongdoing of that NFL guy was driving drunk , but that was not the cause of the accident.Reading a bit more , the 59 years old dad was just another stupid candidate for the Darwin Awards .
Trying to cross a 6 lane highway is simply suicide .
Not worth putting someone else in jail for life because of your own stupid actions , is it ?
That is my point of view , and it has nothing to do with million of dollars for 24 worthless songs from so-called " artists " of the 21 century .
And that 's all I know about this case so I just ca n't judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you and all who claim that's a difference in treatment just don't understand.
Because you do not know the facts and the details of how things happened, you can't really discuss it and shout injustice to the world, only reacting with your own feelings.
The reason why there is a court process is exactly to establish FACTS that are not obvious and try to find some truth among all the various points of view of disputing parties.
Apparently the only wrongdoing of that NFL guy was driving drunk, but that was not the cause of the accident.Reading a bit more, the 59 years old dad was just another stupid candidate for the Darwin Awards.
Trying to cross a 6 lane highway is simply suicide.
Not worth putting someone else in jail for life because of your own stupid actions, is it?
That is my point of view, and it has nothing to do with million of dollars for 24 worthless songs from so-called "artists" of the 21 century.
And that's all I know about this case so I just can't judge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28609815</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1246987980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't there some kind of common-sense law which prohibits especially large amounts like this to be handed down to individuals??</p> </div><p>Yes there are several bodies of law of which this verdict ran afoul. One is copyright jurisprudence regarding the appropriate measure of damages. Another is 5th Amendment due process jurisprudence over unreasonably large "punitive awards". Another possible area is the 8th amendment "excessive fines"principle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there some kind of common-sense law which prohibits especially large amounts like this to be handed down to individuals ? ?
Yes there are several bodies of law of which this verdict ran afoul .
One is copyright jurisprudence regarding the appropriate measure of damages .
Another is 5th Amendment due process jurisprudence over unreasonably large " punitive awards " .
Another possible area is the 8th amendment " excessive fines " principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there some kind of common-sense law which prohibits especially large amounts like this to be handed down to individuals??
Yes there are several bodies of law of which this verdict ran afoul.
One is copyright jurisprudence regarding the appropriate measure of damages.
Another is 5th Amendment due process jurisprudence over unreasonably large "punitive awards".
Another possible area is the 8th amendment "excessive fines"principle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28607321</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1246978380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't there some kind of common-sense law which prohibits especially large amounts like this to be handed down to individuals?</p></div><p>The second amendment.  The RIAA doesn't care about human life; why should humans care about the RIAA?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there some kind of common-sense law which prohibits especially large amounts like this to be handed down to individuals ? The second amendment .
The RIAA does n't care about human life ; why should humans care about the RIAA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there some kind of common-sense law which prohibits especially large amounts like this to be handed down to individuals?The second amendment.
The RIAA doesn't care about human life; why should humans care about the RIAA?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28608273</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1246981980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean to go with their other wins. Wait, did they ever actually have any? Wasn't this the only one that they've one, well unless you count the previous attempt at this trial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean to go with their other wins .
Wait , did they ever actually have any ?
Was n't this the only one that they 've one , well unless you count the previous attempt at this trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean to go with their other wins.
Wait, did they ever actually have any?
Wasn't this the only one that they've one, well unless you count the previous attempt at this trial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28605087</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246958700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd be the first criminal to even consider being caught before committing it.</p><p>Ok, the first non-white-collar criminal, where criminal action is more a question of "possible profit vs. chance of being caught and possible fine", where it's generally not a matter of legal or illegal but rather one of profit vs. expense.</p><p>Do you think the average bank robber wastes a single second on pondering what's gonna happen if he's caught? Or murder. Hell, there's places where you're killed for murder, but did that eliminate people doing it? Hell no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd be the first criminal to even consider being caught before committing it.Ok , the first non-white-collar criminal , where criminal action is more a question of " possible profit vs. chance of being caught and possible fine " , where it 's generally not a matter of legal or illegal but rather one of profit vs. expense.Do you think the average bank robber wastes a single second on pondering what 's gon na happen if he 's caught ?
Or murder .
Hell , there 's places where you 're killed for murder , but did that eliminate people doing it ?
Hell no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd be the first criminal to even consider being caught before committing it.Ok, the first non-white-collar criminal, where criminal action is more a question of "possible profit vs. chance of being caught and possible fine", where it's generally not a matter of legal or illegal but rather one of profit vs. expense.Do you think the average bank robber wastes a single second on pondering what's gonna happen if he's caught?
Or murder.
Hell, there's places where you're killed for murder, but did that eliminate people doing it?
Hell no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28617085</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246981260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets. $1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40. Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone's life over. Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.</i> </p><p>And you \_could\_ have crashed into a busload of pregnant nuns and killed all of them and their fetuses, plus the pregnant bus driver and her fetus. So how's all that stack up, you scofflaw?</p><p>If this, if that, if all the \_possible\_ outcomes that never happened, but \_could\_ have. As my sainted mother used to say, "Yeah, and if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets .
$ 1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40 .
Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone 's life over .
Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime .
And you \ _could \ _ have crashed into a busload of pregnant nuns and killed all of them and their fetuses , plus the pregnant bus driver and her fetus .
So how 's all that stack up , you scofflaw ? If this , if that , if all the \ _possible \ _ outcomes that never happened , but \ _could \ _ have .
As my sainted mother used to say , " Yeah , and if your aunt had balls , she 'd be your uncle " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets.
$1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40.
Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone's life over.
Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.
And you \_could\_ have crashed into a busload of pregnant nuns and killed all of them and their fetuses, plus the pregnant bus driver and her fetus.
So how's all that stack up, you scofflaw?If this, if that, if all the \_possible\_ outcomes that never happened, but \_could\_ have.
As my sainted mother used to say, "Yeah, and if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28614029</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>QRDeNameland</author>
	<datestamp>1246961340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seems he's a bit of a low life and he robs the store, killing the clerk.</p></div><p>I was about to call it a serious understatement that such behavior only qualifies as "a bit of a low life", then remembered that Robert McNamara died yesterday and realized that a single robbery and homicide really is only just "a bit" compared to a *real* criminal low life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems he 's a bit of a low life and he robs the store , killing the clerk.I was about to call it a serious understatement that such behavior only qualifies as " a bit of a low life " , then remembered that Robert McNamara died yesterday and realized that a single robbery and homicide really is only just " a bit " compared to a * real * criminal low life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems he's a bit of a low life and he robs the store, killing the clerk.I was about to call it a serious understatement that such behavior only qualifies as "a bit of a low life", then remembered that Robert McNamara died yesterday and realized that a single robbery and homicide really is only just "a bit" compared to a *real* criminal low life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604477</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246908300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't there some kind of common-sense law which prohibits especially large amounts like this to be handed down to individuals??
Also, going for a home run is a good idea if the lawyer by your side is one of the best in the country (which is true in this case).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there some kind of common-sense law which prohibits especially large amounts like this to be handed down to individuals ? ?
Also , going for a home run is a good idea if the lawyer by your side is one of the best in the country ( which is true in this case ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there some kind of common-sense law which prohibits especially large amounts like this to be handed down to individuals??
Also, going for a home run is a good idea if the lawyer by your side is one of the best in the country (which is true in this case).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417</id>
	<title>Re:Can't pay the fine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246907460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets.  $1.9 million because I <i>may</i> be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40.  Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone's life over.  Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets .
$ 1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40 .
Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone 's life over .
Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets.
$1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40.
Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone's life over.
Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28608025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28607469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28609815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28616053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28611025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28609061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28607321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28617085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28605873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28608273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28607827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28607249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28605087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28614029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28608159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28605631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28619289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28605159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28621985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28613359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_049252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28610755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_049252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28616053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28605087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28617085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28608025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28605631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604703
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28610755
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28607827
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28609061
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28611025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_049252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28608159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_049252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28608273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604983
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604855
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28605159
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28613359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604807
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28605873
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28614029
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28607469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606823
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28621985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604477
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28604623
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28607249
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28619289
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28606179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28607321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_049252.28609815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
