<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_10_1529215</id>
	<title>Downloading Copyrighted Material Legal In Spain</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247243580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Sqwuzzy notes a judge's ruling in Spain that makes that country <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/judge-rules-p2p-legal-sites-to-be-presumed-innocent-090707/">one of the most lenient in the world</a> as respects sharing copyrighted material over P2P networks. <i>"The entertainment industries in Spain must be progressively tearing their hair out in recent months as they experience setback after setback. ... After Spain virtually ruled out imposing a '3-strikes' regime for illicit file-sharers, the entertainment industries said they would target 200 BitTorrent sites instead. Now a judge has decided that sharing between users for no profit via P2P doesn't breach copyright laws and sites should be presumed innocent until proved otherwise."</i> This ruling occurred in a pre-trial hearing; the case will still go to trial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sqwuzzy notes a judge 's ruling in Spain that makes that country one of the most lenient in the world as respects sharing copyrighted material over P2P networks .
" The entertainment industries in Spain must be progressively tearing their hair out in recent months as they experience setback after setback .
... After Spain virtually ruled out imposing a '3-strikes ' regime for illicit file-sharers , the entertainment industries said they would target 200 BitTorrent sites instead .
Now a judge has decided that sharing between users for no profit via P2P does n't breach copyright laws and sites should be presumed innocent until proved otherwise .
" This ruling occurred in a pre-trial hearing ; the case will still go to trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sqwuzzy notes a judge's ruling in Spain that makes that country one of the most lenient in the world as respects sharing copyrighted material over P2P networks.
"The entertainment industries in Spain must be progressively tearing their hair out in recent months as they experience setback after setback.
... After Spain virtually ruled out imposing a '3-strikes' regime for illicit file-sharers, the entertainment industries said they would target 200 BitTorrent sites instead.
Now a judge has decided that sharing between users for no profit via P2P doesn't breach copyright laws and sites should be presumed innocent until proved otherwise.
" This ruling occurred in a pre-trial hearing; the case will still go to trial.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653341</id>
	<title>Re:What isn't copyrighted material?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247255640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We pay a similar fee in Finland, so downloading/copying for personal use is legal. But with p2p-torrents your are also uploading (distributing publicly) which is illegal. So I guess p2p is still illegal for us. But copying anything from a friend privately is not illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We pay a similar fee in Finland , so downloading/copying for personal use is legal .
But with p2p-torrents your are also uploading ( distributing publicly ) which is illegal .
So I guess p2p is still illegal for us .
But copying anything from a friend privately is not illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We pay a similar fee in Finland, so downloading/copying for personal use is legal.
But with p2p-torrents your are also uploading (distributing publicly) which is illegal.
So I guess p2p is still illegal for us.
But copying anything from a friend privately is not illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28656395</id>
	<title>Re:Practice!</title>
	<author>sam0vi</author>
	<datestamp>1247231160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the equivalent of the RIAA here in Spain is called SGAE, which roughly translates as "General Society of Authors and Editors". As a Spaniard and a rabid bittorrent user, I officially welcome this sudden outbreak of common sense. But let's see first how long this lasts and how far it goes (as Mr Wolf would say: let's not start sucking our cocks just yet!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the equivalent of the RIAA here in Spain is called SGAE , which roughly translates as " General Society of Authors and Editors " .
As a Spaniard and a rabid bittorrent user , I officially welcome this sudden outbreak of common sense .
But let 's see first how long this lasts and how far it goes ( as Mr Wolf would say : let 's not start sucking our cocks just yet !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the equivalent of the RIAA here in Spain is called SGAE, which roughly translates as "General Society of Authors and Editors".
As a Spaniard and a rabid bittorrent user, I officially welcome this sudden outbreak of common sense.
But let's see first how long this lasts and how far it goes (as Mr Wolf would say: let's not start sucking our cocks just yet!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653013</id>
	<title>Re:What isn't copyrighted material?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1247254260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No no no, the person who feels he has to pay for his music/movies is subsidizing himself by paying the levy on media.  You are subsidizing someone who feels he is entitled to be paid twice(or many times over) for the same work that someone else did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No no no , the person who feels he has to pay for his music/movies is subsidizing himself by paying the levy on media .
You are subsidizing someone who feels he is entitled to be paid twice ( or many times over ) for the same work that someone else did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no no, the person who feels he has to pay for his music/movies is subsidizing himself by paying the levy on media.
You are subsidizing someone who feels he is entitled to be paid twice(or many times over) for the same work that someone else did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28668775</id>
	<title>Re:I heard the same thing about Sweden...</title>
	<author>bentcd</author>
	<datestamp>1247428080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I heard the same thing about Sweden... then suddenly The Pirate Bay went down after police raided the building that housed the servers.</p></div><p>It would appear that the Spanish entertainment cartel isn't competent enough to be able to get a hard-line copyright lobbyist for judge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard the same thing about Sweden... then suddenly The Pirate Bay went down after police raided the building that housed the servers.It would appear that the Spanish entertainment cartel is n't competent enough to be able to get a hard-line copyright lobbyist for judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard the same thing about Sweden... then suddenly The Pirate Bay went down after police raided the building that housed the servers.It would appear that the Spanish entertainment cartel isn't competent enough to be able to get a hard-line copyright lobbyist for judge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652255</id>
	<title>Re:that's really the entire crux of the entire iss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247251440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're going to talk about intent and how copyright was intended to protect the profits of the original creator your argument falls to pieces:  The intent of copyright law is not so that 20 people can pool together to purchase one copy of a piece of software then install it on each of their 20 machines because just like a second publisher re-publishing a book this action is also undercutting the profits of the original creator.</p><p>(Note that both of these concepts fall to pieces when you consider non-simultaneous sharing of a product.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to talk about intent and how copyright was intended to protect the profits of the original creator your argument falls to pieces : The intent of copyright law is not so that 20 people can pool together to purchase one copy of a piece of software then install it on each of their 20 machines because just like a second publisher re-publishing a book this action is also undercutting the profits of the original creator .
( Note that both of these concepts fall to pieces when you consider non-simultaneous sharing of a product .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to talk about intent and how copyright was intended to protect the profits of the original creator your argument falls to pieces:  The intent of copyright law is not so that 20 people can pool together to purchase one copy of a piece of software then install it on each of their 20 machines because just like a second publisher re-publishing a book this action is also undercutting the profits of the original creator.
(Note that both of these concepts fall to pieces when you consider non-simultaneous sharing of a product.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569</id>
	<title>What isn't copyrighted material?</title>
	<author>pembo13</author>
	<datestamp>1247248380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought everything was copyrighted by default?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought everything was copyrighted by default ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought everything was copyrighted by default?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651785</id>
	<title>If only.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247249640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only tpb moved from Sweden to Spain, then they wouldn't've sold out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only tpb moved from Sweden to Spain , then they would n't've sold out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only tpb moved from Sweden to Spain, then they wouldn't've sold out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654503</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1247217780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of moronic kids were just making up what they thought the laws in sweden should be (and presenting it as fact). You didn't hear this in the news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of moronic kids were just making up what they thought the laws in sweden should be ( and presenting it as fact ) .
You did n't hear this in the news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of moronic kids were just making up what they thought the laws in sweden should be (and presenting it as fact).
You didn't hear this in the news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652339</id>
	<title>Who wants to live in Spain?</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1247251680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Qui&eacute;n quiere a vivir en Espa&ntilde;a? I just wanted to try that. It won't render &amp;iquest;.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Qui   n quiere a vivir en Espa   a ?
I just wanted to try that .
It wo n't render   .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quién quiere a vivir en España?
I just wanted to try that.
It won't render ¿.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651765</id>
	<title>In related news ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1247249520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... the RIAA begins a search for the next
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco\_Franco" title="wikipedia.org">General Francisco Franco</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the RIAA begins a search for the next General Francisco Franco [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the RIAA begins a search for the next
General Francisco Franco [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652187</id>
	<title>Perfect</title>
	<author>BigJClark</author>
	<datestamp>1247251140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
Finally, a testbed so we can see if this ruling has a detrimental effect on the artists, the economy, or the industry(Spanish, that is) as a whole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , a testbed so we can see if this ruling has a detrimental effect on the artists , the economy , or the industry ( Spanish , that is ) as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Finally, a testbed so we can see if this ruling has a detrimental effect on the artists, the economy, or the industry(Spanish, that is) as a whole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651731</id>
	<title>that's really the entire crux of the entire issue:</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1247249340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no profit</p><p>copyright laws were created so that some other guy with a printing press or vinyl press wouldn't make and sell copies of a book or recording all on his own without regard to the creator</p><p>it never was intended, and never had anything to do with, the idea of someone reproducing material and giving it away FOR FREE</p><p>simply because such a person would be insane: all that expense for nothing. to not be motivated by profit is simply nonsensical on the old media world, which was the whole point in copyright: keep the profit with the creators</p><p>but the issue of effortless file sharing is a fundamental change in how media works, and has more to do with traditional publishers coming to grips with a new reality. IANAL, but i would like to see a legal argument that says copyright law is only valid for the pursuit of those PROFITING from illicit copies, that those copying for free are essentially outside the scope of the spirit of intellectual property laws and their intent and purpose. which is a fundamentally true argument: the internet is new technology and makes possible what was not possible before, so to apply laws from an old era onto it without thought is to fail to understand the issues in play</p><p>such an approach would draw a nice line between the old media world and the new media world as defined by the new economic laws the internet forces onto the world, welcome or not</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no profitcopyright laws were created so that some other guy with a printing press or vinyl press would n't make and sell copies of a book or recording all on his own without regard to the creatorit never was intended , and never had anything to do with , the idea of someone reproducing material and giving it away FOR FREEsimply because such a person would be insane : all that expense for nothing .
to not be motivated by profit is simply nonsensical on the old media world , which was the whole point in copyright : keep the profit with the creatorsbut the issue of effortless file sharing is a fundamental change in how media works , and has more to do with traditional publishers coming to grips with a new reality .
IANAL , but i would like to see a legal argument that says copyright law is only valid for the pursuit of those PROFITING from illicit copies , that those copying for free are essentially outside the scope of the spirit of intellectual property laws and their intent and purpose .
which is a fundamentally true argument : the internet is new technology and makes possible what was not possible before , so to apply laws from an old era onto it without thought is to fail to understand the issues in playsuch an approach would draw a nice line between the old media world and the new media world as defined by the new economic laws the internet forces onto the world , welcome or not</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no profitcopyright laws were created so that some other guy with a printing press or vinyl press wouldn't make and sell copies of a book or recording all on his own without regard to the creatorit never was intended, and never had anything to do with, the idea of someone reproducing material and giving it away FOR FREEsimply because such a person would be insane: all that expense for nothing.
to not be motivated by profit is simply nonsensical on the old media world, which was the whole point in copyright: keep the profit with the creatorsbut the issue of effortless file sharing is a fundamental change in how media works, and has more to do with traditional publishers coming to grips with a new reality.
IANAL, but i would like to see a legal argument that says copyright law is only valid for the pursuit of those PROFITING from illicit copies, that those copying for free are essentially outside the scope of the spirit of intellectual property laws and their intent and purpose.
which is a fundamentally true argument: the internet is new technology and makes possible what was not possible before, so to apply laws from an old era onto it without thought is to fail to understand the issues in playsuch an approach would draw a nice line between the old media world and the new media world as defined by the new economic laws the internet forces onto the world, welcome or not</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651915</id>
	<title>Hey Spain</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1247250240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey Spain, you're about to get new residents.  The RIAA is moving in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Spain , you 're about to get new residents .
The RIAA is moving in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Spain, you're about to get new residents.
The RIAA is moving in!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652267</id>
	<title>Re:that's really the entire crux of the entire iss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247251440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>since you said Intellectual Property, what about stretching your claim to patents: if person X patents an item, and person Y makes the item for free and gives it away, is he in violation of the patent even though he isn't selling it?  what if Y does it to flood the market and put person X out of business, because his other product lines can support the cost? I thought that IP law protects X in that regard. Perhaps the same or something similar could be said for copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>since you said Intellectual Property , what about stretching your claim to patents : if person X patents an item , and person Y makes the item for free and gives it away , is he in violation of the patent even though he is n't selling it ?
what if Y does it to flood the market and put person X out of business , because his other product lines can support the cost ?
I thought that IP law protects X in that regard .
Perhaps the same or something similar could be said for copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since you said Intellectual Property, what about stretching your claim to patents: if person X patents an item, and person Y makes the item for free and gives it away, is he in violation of the patent even though he isn't selling it?
what if Y does it to flood the market and put person X out of business, because his other product lines can support the cost?
I thought that IP law protects X in that regard.
Perhaps the same or something similar could be said for copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651843</id>
	<title>but spanish broadband is killingly expensive too</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1247249880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like &#226;40+ ($55 US) a month for a basic, capped, 2MBit/sec internet connection on top of your phone line rental.
<p>That's if Telefonica - the national telephone monopoly will let you have a phone line, which in rural communities they often won't, due to having no spare wires.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like   40 + ( $ 55 US ) a month for a basic , capped , 2MBit/sec internet connection on top of your phone line rental .
That 's if Telefonica - the national telephone monopoly will let you have a phone line , which in rural communities they often wo n't , due to having no spare wires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like â40+ ($55 US) a month for a basic, capped, 2MBit/sec internet connection on top of your phone line rental.
That's if Telefonica - the national telephone monopoly will let you have a phone line, which in rural communities they often won't, due to having no spare wires.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651793</id>
	<title>Supreme Court?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247249700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume that Spain has a supreme court of some kind, and that there are avenues to appeal. I have a hard time believing that higher judges would accept that mass internet copyright infringement is a right. But you never know. This is Spain, a country that has judges that take it upon themselves to prosecute foreign "war criminals", and was only recently rebuffed in their efforts to do so. They might well rule "Hey, download all you like here".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume that Spain has a supreme court of some kind , and that there are avenues to appeal .
I have a hard time believing that higher judges would accept that mass internet copyright infringement is a right .
But you never know .
This is Spain , a country that has judges that take it upon themselves to prosecute foreign " war criminals " , and was only recently rebuffed in their efforts to do so .
They might well rule " Hey , download all you like here " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume that Spain has a supreme court of some kind, and that there are avenues to appeal.
I have a hard time believing that higher judges would accept that mass internet copyright infringement is a right.
But you never know.
This is Spain, a country that has judges that take it upon themselves to prosecute foreign "war criminals", and was only recently rebuffed in their efforts to do so.
They might well rule "Hey, download all you like here".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652207</id>
	<title>Re:Short lived ruling?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247251200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy..</p></div></blockquote><p>That would be bad.  But I think people are talking about sales being legally <em>losable</em>, not <em>lost.</em></p><blockquote><div><p>How would companies stay in business? Well, they'd do it by erecting technical barriers to copying. DRM plus a million. Because they would have to.</p></div></blockquote><p>Backwards.  That's how the company goes out of business: creating negative value for the people for buy their product, instead of ignoring (or trying to attract) the people who don't.  DRM is what <em>causes</em> all sales (as opposed to some sales) to change from losable to lost.  People can play the non-DRMed content, so some of them will buy it.  A market still exists.  People can't play DRMed content, so no market exists at all, except the advertising market on the pirate torrent sites.</p><blockquote><div><p>If you justify copyright infringment based on..</p></div></blockquote><p>Nobody's justifying infringement.  They're saying that it might be legal.  Different thing.  There are <em>way</em> too many things in this world that are legal that I wouldn't justify or do.  I'm not about to start drinking bleach, even if my government doesn't point a gun at me and say I'm not allowed to.</p><p>Companies need to look to their profits, not pirates.  Pirates aren't going to pay; they're not in the market. If you try to look at things from the pirates' point of view, the whole thing is really bleak.  And God help you if you adapt copyright policy to their point of view.  Adios, creation.</p><p>Copyright policy should look at things from the seller's point of view:  who <em>is</em> in the market?  Those are the people whose money you want.  They aren't downloading the songs from someone else; they're buying it.  Or at least that's the case if you're selling.  So take their money.  (Or leave it, if you're not in business.)</p><p>If we're going to talk about the common sense aspect of things, then DRM is the last thing I'd expect a profit-seeking business to pursue.  I'd like to see a pro-DRM manager justify their decision to not have customers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If , instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy , all sales were legally lost to piracy..That would be bad .
But I think people are talking about sales being legally losable , not lost.How would companies stay in business ?
Well , they 'd do it by erecting technical barriers to copying .
DRM plus a million .
Because they would have to.Backwards .
That 's how the company goes out of business : creating negative value for the people for buy their product , instead of ignoring ( or trying to attract ) the people who do n't .
DRM is what causes all sales ( as opposed to some sales ) to change from losable to lost .
People can play the non-DRMed content , so some of them will buy it .
A market still exists .
People ca n't play DRMed content , so no market exists at all , except the advertising market on the pirate torrent sites.If you justify copyright infringment based on..Nobody 's justifying infringement .
They 're saying that it might be legal .
Different thing .
There are way too many things in this world that are legal that I would n't justify or do .
I 'm not about to start drinking bleach , even if my government does n't point a gun at me and say I 'm not allowed to.Companies need to look to their profits , not pirates .
Pirates are n't going to pay ; they 're not in the market .
If you try to look at things from the pirates ' point of view , the whole thing is really bleak .
And God help you if you adapt copyright policy to their point of view .
Adios , creation.Copyright policy should look at things from the seller 's point of view : who is in the market ?
Those are the people whose money you want .
They are n't downloading the songs from someone else ; they 're buying it .
Or at least that 's the case if you 're selling .
So take their money .
( Or leave it , if you 're not in business .
) If we 're going to talk about the common sense aspect of things , then DRM is the last thing I 'd expect a profit-seeking business to pursue .
I 'd like to see a pro-DRM manager justify their decision to not have customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy..That would be bad.
But I think people are talking about sales being legally losable, not lost.How would companies stay in business?
Well, they'd do it by erecting technical barriers to copying.
DRM plus a million.
Because they would have to.Backwards.
That's how the company goes out of business: creating negative value for the people for buy their product, instead of ignoring (or trying to attract) the people who don't.
DRM is what causes all sales (as opposed to some sales) to change from losable to lost.
People can play the non-DRMed content, so some of them will buy it.
A market still exists.
People can't play DRMed content, so no market exists at all, except the advertising market on the pirate torrent sites.If you justify copyright infringment based on..Nobody's justifying infringement.
They're saying that it might be legal.
Different thing.
There are way too many things in this world that are legal that I wouldn't justify or do.
I'm not about to start drinking bleach, even if my government doesn't point a gun at me and say I'm not allowed to.Companies need to look to their profits, not pirates.
Pirates aren't going to pay; they're not in the market.
If you try to look at things from the pirates' point of view, the whole thing is really bleak.
And God help you if you adapt copyright policy to their point of view.
Adios, creation.Copyright policy should look at things from the seller's point of view:  who is in the market?
Those are the people whose money you want.
They aren't downloading the songs from someone else; they're buying it.
Or at least that's the case if you're selling.
So take their money.
(Or leave it, if you're not in business.
)If we're going to talk about the common sense aspect of things, then DRM is the last thing I'd expect a profit-seeking business to pursue.
I'd like to see a pro-DRM manager justify their decision to not have customers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653051</id>
	<title>Re:What isn't copyrighted material?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247254440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;What a joke.</p><p>No it isn't. It's not funny in the slightest, but it is true. It is what you get when briber^H^H^H^H^H lobbying is legal. Fortunately you don't get that over in the states. Only in socialist Europe. I think it's called maritime law or mercantile law or something. Could be admiralty, not shure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What a joke.No it is n't .
It 's not funny in the slightest , but it is true .
It is what you get when briber ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H lobbying is legal .
Fortunately you do n't get that over in the states .
Only in socialist Europe .
I think it 's called maritime law or mercantile law or something .
Could be admiralty , not shure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;What a joke.No it isn't.
It's not funny in the slightest, but it is true.
It is what you get when briber^H^H^H^H^H lobbying is legal.
Fortunately you don't get that over in the states.
Only in socialist Europe.
I think it's called maritime law or mercantile law or something.
Could be admiralty, not shure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651857</id>
	<title>Re:What isn't copyrighted material?</title>
	<author>MyLongNickName</author>
	<datestamp>1247249880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In the Netherlands for example we pay about 24 eurocents on every empty cd or dvd we buy</i></p><p>And this makes sense? I  buy all my music and use CD/DVD for data copying. So I'd have to subsidize someone who doesn't feel he has to buy music/movies? What a joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the Netherlands for example we pay about 24 eurocents on every empty cd or dvd we buyAnd this makes sense ?
I buy all my music and use CD/DVD for data copying .
So I 'd have to subsidize someone who does n't feel he has to buy music/movies ?
What a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the Netherlands for example we pay about 24 eurocents on every empty cd or dvd we buyAnd this makes sense?
I  buy all my music and use CD/DVD for data copying.
So I'd have to subsidize someone who doesn't feel he has to buy music/movies?
What a joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651479</id>
	<title>I heard the same thing about Sweden...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247247780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard the same thing about Sweden... then suddenly The Pirate Bay went down after police raided the building that housed the servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard the same thing about Sweden... then suddenly The Pirate Bay went down after police raided the building that housed the servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard the same thing about Sweden... then suddenly The Pirate Bay went down after police raided the building that housed the servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28656309</id>
	<title>Re:I heard the same thing about Sweden...</title>
	<author>Mephistro</author>
	<datestamp>1247230560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>then suddenly The Pirate Bay went down after police raided the building that housed the servers.</p></div><p>Well, it may have something to do with the Swedish equivalent of RIAA pouring tons of money onto lawmakers, judges and attorneys, through these 'copyright defense groups'. IMHO, any judge involved with these organizations is totally 'tainted', and should NEVER be allowed to judge this kind of case. The TPB case will go all the way up the chain to the EU courts, and my bet is that the Swedish government and judiciary will get a good beating for violating their own (Swedish) laws.
It's not that we haven't this kind of bribery^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbying here in Spain, but the public is pretty well informed, and bending again to the big media would cost the government many votes. As surely the TPB case will cost the Swedish government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>then suddenly The Pirate Bay went down after police raided the building that housed the servers.Well , it may have something to do with the Swedish equivalent of RIAA pouring tons of money onto lawmakers , judges and attorneys , through these 'copyright defense groups' .
IMHO , any judge involved with these organizations is totally 'tainted ' , and should NEVER be allowed to judge this kind of case .
The TPB case will go all the way up the chain to the EU courts , and my bet is that the Swedish government and judiciary will get a good beating for violating their own ( Swedish ) laws .
It 's not that we have n't this kind of bribery ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H lobbying here in Spain , but the public is pretty well informed , and bending again to the big media would cost the government many votes .
As surely the TPB case will cost the Swedish government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then suddenly The Pirate Bay went down after police raided the building that housed the servers.Well, it may have something to do with the Swedish equivalent of RIAA pouring tons of money onto lawmakers, judges and attorneys, through these 'copyright defense groups'.
IMHO, any judge involved with these organizations is totally 'tainted', and should NEVER be allowed to judge this kind of case.
The TPB case will go all the way up the chain to the EU courts, and my bet is that the Swedish government and judiciary will get a good beating for violating their own (Swedish) laws.
It's not that we haven't this kind of bribery^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbying here in Spain, but the public is pretty well informed, and bending again to the big media would cost the government many votes.
As surely the TPB case will cost the Swedish government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654827</id>
	<title>Re:I heard the same thing about Sweden...</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1247219640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But that was just based on the legal opinion of some guy who thought he knew the law.  <br> <br>
This is based on an actual judges opinion.  Certainly a lot more weight, even if not the final decision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But that was just based on the legal opinion of some guy who thought he knew the law .
This is based on an actual judges opinion .
Certainly a lot more weight , even if not the final decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that was just based on the legal opinion of some guy who thought he knew the law.
This is based on an actual judges opinion.
Certainly a lot more weight, even if not the final decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652987</id>
	<title>Re:Practice!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247254140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lack of gain<br>in Spain<br>Drives RIAA mainly<br>Burma Shave!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lack of gainin SpainDrives RIAA mainlyBurma Shave !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lack of gainin SpainDrives RIAA mainlyBurma Shave!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651595</id>
	<title>Job Interview Videos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247248560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A cool place I found <a href="http://interviewstudioblog.com/interviews-on-video/interviews-on-video-match-com-for-employers/" title="interviewstudioblog.com" rel="nofollow">Best and FREE tips for Interviews on Video</a> [interviewstudioblog.com] It&#226;(TM)s seems like a really cool tool to search for upper level management, account executive jobs, VP level jobs&#226;&#166;etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A cool place I found Best and FREE tips for Interviews on Video [ interviewstudioblog.com ] It   ( TM ) s seems like a really cool tool to search for upper level management , account executive jobs , VP level jobs     etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A cool place I found Best and FREE tips for Interviews on Video [interviewstudioblog.com] Itâ(TM)s seems like a really cool tool to search for upper level management, account executive jobs, VP level jobsâ¦etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653939</id>
	<title>Re:that's really the entire crux of the entire iss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247258280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>those copying for free are essentially outside the scope of the spirit of intellectual property laws and their intent and purpose.</p></div><p>Distributing free copies does not make it permissible to pirate.  Even if you don't profit from the distribution, you still reduce profits for the original creators, who should be compensated for THEIR work.  Illegal copying violates IP because it steals compensation away from the owner.  It doesn't matter if the copy is on paper or an electronic file; if it belongs to someone it's theirs and they are entitled to any profits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>those copying for free are essentially outside the scope of the spirit of intellectual property laws and their intent and purpose.Distributing free copies does not make it permissible to pirate .
Even if you do n't profit from the distribution , you still reduce profits for the original creators , who should be compensated for THEIR work .
Illegal copying violates IP because it steals compensation away from the owner .
It does n't matter if the copy is on paper or an electronic file ; if it belongs to someone it 's theirs and they are entitled to any profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>those copying for free are essentially outside the scope of the spirit of intellectual property laws and their intent and purpose.Distributing free copies does not make it permissible to pirate.
Even if you don't profit from the distribution, you still reduce profits for the original creators, who should be compensated for THEIR work.
Illegal copying violates IP because it steals compensation away from the owner.
It doesn't matter if the copy is on paper or an electronic file; if it belongs to someone it's theirs and they are entitled to any profits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651675</id>
	<title>Re:Short lived ruling?</title>
	<author>dnahelicase</author>
	<datestamp>1247249040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't ruling that the people themselves are innocent, but that the sites that facilitate the sharing of information should be considered innocent until proven otherwise.

I don't think this would be a problem, as there are always going to be link-sites out there.  IANAL but it seems like this ruling is more or less defending the PB approach (search for links) and wouldn't apply to the old Napster approach (hosting).

This might not hold up very long if applied to people that are themselves sharing and hosting content, but the trials here are mainly dealing with the BT sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't ruling that the people themselves are innocent , but that the sites that facilitate the sharing of information should be considered innocent until proven otherwise .
I do n't think this would be a problem , as there are always going to be link-sites out there .
IANAL but it seems like this ruling is more or less defending the PB approach ( search for links ) and would n't apply to the old Napster approach ( hosting ) .
This might not hold up very long if applied to people that are themselves sharing and hosting content , but the trials here are mainly dealing with the BT sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't ruling that the people themselves are innocent, but that the sites that facilitate the sharing of information should be considered innocent until proven otherwise.
I don't think this would be a problem, as there are always going to be link-sites out there.
IANAL but it seems like this ruling is more or less defending the PB approach (search for links) and wouldn't apply to the old Napster approach (hosting).
This might not hold up very long if applied to people that are themselves sharing and hosting content, but the trials here are mainly dealing with the BT sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654417</id>
	<title>Re:that's really the entire crux of the entire iss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247217360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think it is dangerous to try to assume or derive intent from laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not disagreeing with you , but I think it is dangerous to try to assume or derive intent from laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think it is dangerous to try to assume or derive intent from laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652215</id>
	<title>Re:What isn't copyrighted material?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1247251200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, some people would argue that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation\_in\_the\_Netherlands" title="wikipedia.org">you end up subsidizing a lot more than just the illicit file-sharers if you live in the Netherlands</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , some people would argue that you end up subsidizing a lot more than just the illicit file-sharers if you live in the Netherlands [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, some people would argue that you end up subsidizing a lot more than just the illicit file-sharers if you live in the Netherlands [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651507</id>
	<title>downloading copyrighted material</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247248080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure if I go to microsoft.com or any other website the content over there is copyrighted, but yet it's legal for me to download it. I can even download software they provide free of charge, and they are copyrighted, but it's still 100\% legal.</p><p>Just why would anyone think downloading something that has a copyright on it would be illegal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure if I go to microsoft.com or any other website the content over there is copyrighted , but yet it 's legal for me to download it .
I can even download software they provide free of charge , and they are copyrighted , but it 's still 100 \ % legal.Just why would anyone think downloading something that has a copyright on it would be illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure if I go to microsoft.com or any other website the content over there is copyrighted, but yet it's legal for me to download it.
I can even download software they provide free of charge, and they are copyrighted, but it's still 100\% legal.Just why would anyone think downloading something that has a copyright on it would be illegal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28656797</id>
	<title>Re:Spanish Justice : a oxymoron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247235060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, this is just random noise from the Spanish (in)justice. Previous rulings are not legally binding there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , this is just random noise from the Spanish ( in ) justice .
Previous rulings are not legally binding there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, this is just random noise from the Spanish (in)justice.
Previous rulings are not legally binding there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28655989</id>
	<title>Re:Easy solution for entertainment industries...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247227800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this modded -1? It should be insightful instead!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this modded -1 ?
It should be insightful instead !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this modded -1?
It should be insightful instead!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652509</id>
	<title>Re:What isn't copyrighted material?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247252400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Creative works" are copyrighted by default, yes.  Not everything is a "creative work"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Creative works " are copyrighted by default , yes .
Not everything is a " creative work " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Creative works" are copyrighted by default, yes.
Not everything is a "creative work"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651819</id>
	<title>Copyright was intended only for commercial use</title>
	<author>popo</author>
	<datestamp>1247249820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well... the original intent of copyright was as applied to "commercial copying"... his reading of the law is 100\% valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... the original intent of copyright was as applied to " commercial copying " ... his reading of the law is 100 \ % valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... the original intent of copyright was as applied to "commercial copying"... his reading of the law is 100\% valid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28655447</id>
	<title>Re:Spanish Justice : a oxymoron</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1247223840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's how it is everywhere.  Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how it is everywhere .
Remember the Golden Rule : He who has the gold makes the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's how it is everywhere.
Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28657925</id>
	<title>Re:downloading copyrighted material</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247250960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>More likely that, the website creator (ie: copyright holder) is allowing anyone to view the content as long as it is from this website.  As soon as it is on another website then it is likely to be an infringement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely that , the website creator ( ie : copyright holder ) is allowing anyone to view the content as long as it is from this website .
As soon as it is on another website then it is likely to be an infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely that, the website creator (ie: copyright holder) is allowing anyone to view the content as long as it is from this website.
As soon as it is on another website then it is likely to be an infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651903</id>
	<title>Re:Short lived ruling?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1247250180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy, how would companies stay in business?</i></p><p>By selling services instead of copies. You can't pirate technical support, programmer man hours, etc..</p><p><i>Well, they'd do it by erecting technical barriers to copying. DRM plus a million. Because they would have to.</i></p><p>And it still wouldn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If , instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy , all sales were legally lost to piracy , how would companies stay in business ? By selling services instead of copies .
You ca n't pirate technical support , programmer man hours , etc..Well , they 'd do it by erecting technical barriers to copying .
DRM plus a million .
Because they would have to.And it still would n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy, how would companies stay in business?By selling services instead of copies.
You can't pirate technical support, programmer man hours, etc..Well, they'd do it by erecting technical barriers to copying.
DRM plus a million.
Because they would have to.And it still wouldn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652209</id>
	<title>Re:that's really the entire crux of the entire iss</title>
	<author>Microlith</author>
	<datestamp>1247251200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>no profit</p></div></blockquote><p>No recoup of expenses, either. This is a money driven world, not some socialist utopia where your needs are taken care of.</p><blockquote><div><p>it never was intended, and never had anything to do with, the idea of someone reproducing material and giving it away FOR FREE</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure it did. It grants control over redistribution to the creator. It paid no mind as to whether it was going to be charged for or not, or who distributed it.</p><blockquote><div><p>simply because such a person would be insane: all that expense for nothing. to not be motivated by profit is simply nonsensical on the old media world, which was the whole point in copyright: keep the profit with the creators</p></div></blockquote><p>No. No, no, no. The -purpose- was to give people who created works an incentive to release them by allowing them a means of turning their work into collateral. Instead of having to sit idle until someone came along and paid them, they could take the initiative and produce works of their own accord, and (if they didn't suck) not starve in the process. They could do like any other tradesman and focus entirely on their chosen field and leverage it to live.</p><p>Unless you'd like to think that you could spend a day doing manual labor and still have the energy to write software, make music, or create films. Sure you could, but it probably wouldn't be as good or in anywhere near the quantity.</p><blockquote><div><p>i would like to see a legal argument that says copyright law is only valid for the pursuit of those PROFITING from illicit copies</p></div></blockquote><p>Except it's not limited like that at all. If it were, it'd be pointless, which it definitely is not.</p><blockquote><div><p>the internet is new technology and makes possible what was not possible before, so to apply laws from an old era onto it without thought is to fail to understand the issues in play</p></div></blockquote><p>No it's not. It's simply a super efficient distribution channel. The physical channels would be just as efficient if copyright weren't in effect at all. What people -should- do is leverage that efficient distribution and communication to create new works and license them under terms they agree with, instead of jacking the works of others.</p><p>I'd buy into the argument that the internet and P2P were truly revolutionary if -new- works and more fairly licensed works were giving the RIAA and MPAA a run for their money. But they aren't. All they're doing is giving the MPAA and RIAA a run for their money by trading works owned by the RIAA and MPAA. Thus they prove the RIAA and MPAA's point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>no profitNo recoup of expenses , either .
This is a money driven world , not some socialist utopia where your needs are taken care of.it never was intended , and never had anything to do with , the idea of someone reproducing material and giving it away FOR FREESure it did .
It grants control over redistribution to the creator .
It paid no mind as to whether it was going to be charged for or not , or who distributed it.simply because such a person would be insane : all that expense for nothing .
to not be motivated by profit is simply nonsensical on the old media world , which was the whole point in copyright : keep the profit with the creatorsNo .
No , no , no .
The -purpose- was to give people who created works an incentive to release them by allowing them a means of turning their work into collateral .
Instead of having to sit idle until someone came along and paid them , they could take the initiative and produce works of their own accord , and ( if they did n't suck ) not starve in the process .
They could do like any other tradesman and focus entirely on their chosen field and leverage it to live.Unless you 'd like to think that you could spend a day doing manual labor and still have the energy to write software , make music , or create films .
Sure you could , but it probably would n't be as good or in anywhere near the quantity.i would like to see a legal argument that says copyright law is only valid for the pursuit of those PROFITING from illicit copiesExcept it 's not limited like that at all .
If it were , it 'd be pointless , which it definitely is not.the internet is new technology and makes possible what was not possible before , so to apply laws from an old era onto it without thought is to fail to understand the issues in playNo it 's not .
It 's simply a super efficient distribution channel .
The physical channels would be just as efficient if copyright were n't in effect at all .
What people -should- do is leverage that efficient distribution and communication to create new works and license them under terms they agree with , instead of jacking the works of others.I 'd buy into the argument that the internet and P2P were truly revolutionary if -new- works and more fairly licensed works were giving the RIAA and MPAA a run for their money .
But they are n't .
All they 're doing is giving the MPAA and RIAA a run for their money by trading works owned by the RIAA and MPAA .
Thus they prove the RIAA and MPAA 's point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no profitNo recoup of expenses, either.
This is a money driven world, not some socialist utopia where your needs are taken care of.it never was intended, and never had anything to do with, the idea of someone reproducing material and giving it away FOR FREESure it did.
It grants control over redistribution to the creator.
It paid no mind as to whether it was going to be charged for or not, or who distributed it.simply because such a person would be insane: all that expense for nothing.
to not be motivated by profit is simply nonsensical on the old media world, which was the whole point in copyright: keep the profit with the creatorsNo.
No, no, no.
The -purpose- was to give people who created works an incentive to release them by allowing them a means of turning their work into collateral.
Instead of having to sit idle until someone came along and paid them, they could take the initiative and produce works of their own accord, and (if they didn't suck) not starve in the process.
They could do like any other tradesman and focus entirely on their chosen field and leverage it to live.Unless you'd like to think that you could spend a day doing manual labor and still have the energy to write software, make music, or create films.
Sure you could, but it probably wouldn't be as good or in anywhere near the quantity.i would like to see a legal argument that says copyright law is only valid for the pursuit of those PROFITING from illicit copiesExcept it's not limited like that at all.
If it were, it'd be pointless, which it definitely is not.the internet is new technology and makes possible what was not possible before, so to apply laws from an old era onto it without thought is to fail to understand the issues in playNo it's not.
It's simply a super efficient distribution channel.
The physical channels would be just as efficient if copyright weren't in effect at all.
What people -should- do is leverage that efficient distribution and communication to create new works and license them under terms they agree with, instead of jacking the works of others.I'd buy into the argument that the internet and P2P were truly revolutionary if -new- works and more fairly licensed works were giving the RIAA and MPAA a run for their money.
But they aren't.
All they're doing is giving the MPAA and RIAA a run for their money by trading works owned by the RIAA and MPAA.
Thus they prove the RIAA and MPAA's point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653991</id>
	<title>Re:downloading copyrighted material</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247258580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if some one else uploads WMP, I can't download it from them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if some one else uploads WMP , I ca n't download it from them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if some one else uploads WMP, I can't download it from them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653715</id>
	<title>P2P sharing is not downloading</title>
	<author>m0rtadelo</author>
	<datestamp>1247257080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am totally fed up with the terms commonly used in media, here in Spain, where they usually intentionally mix "Internet downloads" with piracy, when they want to refer to P2P networks, that are the real ones that are supposedly causing troubles to Entertainment Industry. Most Internet users do not distinguish between a website or FTP download from a download from a P2P network, but judges and lawyers do. <br> <br>

When you upload a file to an FTP server you are violating copyright laws, since you are using the right to distribute copyrighted content. When you share the same file on a P2P network, from the legal point of view, you are using your right to private copy of copyrighted content. Here in Spain we do still have the right to private copy, so when I buy a CD I can copy it for personal use. I have the right to lend my original copy of the CD to a friend, but private copy rights allows me to lend not the original but also the copied CD to a friend. And what can be shocking is that private copy law in Spain does not restrict users to a fixed number of copies for personal use. So, from the juridical point of view, sharing your CD songs on Bittorrent network is no different from lending your CD copies to friends.<br> <br>

Having reached this poing technology has evolved much more than laws. So copyrighted content sharing is no longer related to lend some CDs to some friends or relatives, but to the whole world. Spanish RIAA (SGAE) is struggling to press politicians so they "adapt" the private copy law or even make it disappear. I think they are taking the steps, though the things go slower that in other near countries. They have not managed to limit private copy law but they have succedeed in broadening the range of the <a href="http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derecho\_de\_copia\_privada" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"Canon compensatorio"</a> [wikipedia.org], that could be translated as compensatory fee. This is a tax that has been around since tape times, and used to add a percentage to the price of blank tapes or photocopiers among others (books, as copyrighted content, were also protected by this law). Nowodays SGAE has managed to extent this compensatory fee to not only blank media supports (DVDs, CDs, etc.) but also flash cards, mobile phones, hard disks, computers, mp3/4 players, etc. They even managed to ask for a fee on the Internet connection, though I think they have succedeed in it yet. It has been reported that the <b>average Spanish family pays now over 300 euros a year</b> with the current compensatory fee, that is entirley redistributed between Entertainment companies and artists (though the say they share it between artists) by SGAE itself, which is an obscure and privately led organization. 300 euros a year pro family is much more than what an averege Spanish family spent on copyrighted content a few 10 years ago (when copying means where not so effective).<br> <br>

Having said all this I would thank that at least I no longer have to put up with the ads at movie theaters or on TV calling me a thief for <b>legally sharing</b>my copyrighted content, when I am just using a right, for which I have literally paid a significant amount of money. And not only that, but also taking into account that this money goes to an obscure and mafioso association (not even a company, that must keep its balance clearer), whose role in society is quite a bit less than beneficial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am totally fed up with the terms commonly used in media , here in Spain , where they usually intentionally mix " Internet downloads " with piracy , when they want to refer to P2P networks , that are the real ones that are supposedly causing troubles to Entertainment Industry .
Most Internet users do not distinguish between a website or FTP download from a download from a P2P network , but judges and lawyers do .
When you upload a file to an FTP server you are violating copyright laws , since you are using the right to distribute copyrighted content .
When you share the same file on a P2P network , from the legal point of view , you are using your right to private copy of copyrighted content .
Here in Spain we do still have the right to private copy , so when I buy a CD I can copy it for personal use .
I have the right to lend my original copy of the CD to a friend , but private copy rights allows me to lend not the original but also the copied CD to a friend .
And what can be shocking is that private copy law in Spain does not restrict users to a fixed number of copies for personal use .
So , from the juridical point of view , sharing your CD songs on Bittorrent network is no different from lending your CD copies to friends .
Having reached this poing technology has evolved much more than laws .
So copyrighted content sharing is no longer related to lend some CDs to some friends or relatives , but to the whole world .
Spanish RIAA ( SGAE ) is struggling to press politicians so they " adapt " the private copy law or even make it disappear .
I think they are taking the steps , though the things go slower that in other near countries .
They have not managed to limit private copy law but they have succedeed in broadening the range of the " Canon compensatorio " [ wikipedia.org ] , that could be translated as compensatory fee .
This is a tax that has been around since tape times , and used to add a percentage to the price of blank tapes or photocopiers among others ( books , as copyrighted content , were also protected by this law ) .
Nowodays SGAE has managed to extent this compensatory fee to not only blank media supports ( DVDs , CDs , etc .
) but also flash cards , mobile phones , hard disks , computers , mp3/4 players , etc .
They even managed to ask for a fee on the Internet connection , though I think they have succedeed in it yet .
It has been reported that the average Spanish family pays now over 300 euros a year with the current compensatory fee , that is entirley redistributed between Entertainment companies and artists ( though the say they share it between artists ) by SGAE itself , which is an obscure and privately led organization .
300 euros a year pro family is much more than what an averege Spanish family spent on copyrighted content a few 10 years ago ( when copying means where not so effective ) .
Having said all this I would thank that at least I no longer have to put up with the ads at movie theaters or on TV calling me a thief for legally sharingmy copyrighted content , when I am just using a right , for which I have literally paid a significant amount of money .
And not only that , but also taking into account that this money goes to an obscure and mafioso association ( not even a company , that must keep its balance clearer ) , whose role in society is quite a bit less than beneficial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am totally fed up with the terms commonly used in media, here in Spain, where they usually intentionally mix "Internet downloads" with piracy, when they want to refer to P2P networks, that are the real ones that are supposedly causing troubles to Entertainment Industry.
Most Internet users do not distinguish between a website or FTP download from a download from a P2P network, but judges and lawyers do.
When you upload a file to an FTP server you are violating copyright laws, since you are using the right to distribute copyrighted content.
When you share the same file on a P2P network, from the legal point of view, you are using your right to private copy of copyrighted content.
Here in Spain we do still have the right to private copy, so when I buy a CD I can copy it for personal use.
I have the right to lend my original copy of the CD to a friend, but private copy rights allows me to lend not the original but also the copied CD to a friend.
And what can be shocking is that private copy law in Spain does not restrict users to a fixed number of copies for personal use.
So, from the juridical point of view, sharing your CD songs on Bittorrent network is no different from lending your CD copies to friends.
Having reached this poing technology has evolved much more than laws.
So copyrighted content sharing is no longer related to lend some CDs to some friends or relatives, but to the whole world.
Spanish RIAA (SGAE) is struggling to press politicians so they "adapt" the private copy law or even make it disappear.
I think they are taking the steps, though the things go slower that in other near countries.
They have not managed to limit private copy law but they have succedeed in broadening the range of the "Canon compensatorio" [wikipedia.org], that could be translated as compensatory fee.
This is a tax that has been around since tape times, and used to add a percentage to the price of blank tapes or photocopiers among others (books, as copyrighted content, were also protected by this law).
Nowodays SGAE has managed to extent this compensatory fee to not only blank media supports (DVDs, CDs, etc.
) but also flash cards, mobile phones, hard disks, computers, mp3/4 players, etc.
They even managed to ask for a fee on the Internet connection, though I think they have succedeed in it yet.
It has been reported that the average Spanish family pays now over 300 euros a year with the current compensatory fee, that is entirley redistributed between Entertainment companies and artists (though the say they share it between artists) by SGAE itself, which is an obscure and privately led organization.
300 euros a year pro family is much more than what an averege Spanish family spent on copyrighted content a few 10 years ago (when copying means where not so effective).
Having said all this I would thank that at least I no longer have to put up with the ads at movie theaters or on TV calling me a thief for legally sharingmy copyrighted content, when I am just using a right, for which I have literally paid a significant amount of money.
And not only that, but also taking into account that this money goes to an obscure and mafioso association (not even a company, that must keep its balance clearer), whose role in society is quite a bit less than beneficial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652043</id>
	<title>Re:What isn't copyrighted material?</title>
	<author>multisync</author>
	<datestamp>1247250660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is a thing called fair use. In the Netherlands for example we pay about 24 eurocents on every empty cd or dvd we buy. In return it is legal to download music and movies for personal uses</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not "fair use," if you have to pay a tax to do it. Fair use is by definition non-infringing use of copyrighted material. As such, copyright holders should receive no compensation for it.</p><p>We have a similar tax on blank media here in Canada, and people use a similar line of media industry propaganda to justify it, but the notion is just plain wrong. Fair use is non-infringing activity, and citizens should fight to ensure the concept is not eroded by groups who would like to see it done away with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a thing called fair use .
In the Netherlands for example we pay about 24 eurocents on every empty cd or dvd we buy .
In return it is legal to download music and movies for personal usesThat 's not " fair use , " if you have to pay a tax to do it .
Fair use is by definition non-infringing use of copyrighted material .
As such , copyright holders should receive no compensation for it.We have a similar tax on blank media here in Canada , and people use a similar line of media industry propaganda to justify it , but the notion is just plain wrong .
Fair use is non-infringing activity , and citizens should fight to ensure the concept is not eroded by groups who would like to see it done away with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a thing called fair use.
In the Netherlands for example we pay about 24 eurocents on every empty cd or dvd we buy.
In return it is legal to download music and movies for personal usesThat's not "fair use," if you have to pay a tax to do it.
Fair use is by definition non-infringing use of copyrighted material.
As such, copyright holders should receive no compensation for it.We have a similar tax on blank media here in Canada, and people use a similar line of media industry propaganda to justify it, but the notion is just plain wrong.
Fair use is non-infringing activity, and citizens should fight to ensure the concept is not eroded by groups who would like to see it done away with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653691</id>
	<title>Re:downloading copyrighted material</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247256960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because something is copyrighted, doesnt mean its illegal to download.  It depends on the terms associated with the copyright. Microsoft content that they offer free for charge means just that. You can have it for free. They are giving it to you. The copyright probably means you cannot sell it for your profit, or claim it as your own works.  Downloading a movie, music, video game, etc. on the other hand, take a look at the copyright notice, usualy it says duplication prohibited, or something along those lines.  So what is legal depends on what the terms of the copyright are, and how they fit with the law of the particular country.</p><p>(c) Anonymous Coward</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because something is copyrighted , doesnt mean its illegal to download .
It depends on the terms associated with the copyright .
Microsoft content that they offer free for charge means just that .
You can have it for free .
They are giving it to you .
The copyright probably means you can not sell it for your profit , or claim it as your own works .
Downloading a movie , music , video game , etc .
on the other hand , take a look at the copyright notice , usualy it says duplication prohibited , or something along those lines .
So what is legal depends on what the terms of the copyright are , and how they fit with the law of the particular country .
( c ) Anonymous Coward</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because something is copyrighted, doesnt mean its illegal to download.
It depends on the terms associated with the copyright.
Microsoft content that they offer free for charge means just that.
You can have it for free.
They are giving it to you.
The copyright probably means you cannot sell it for your profit, or claim it as your own works.
Downloading a movie, music, video game, etc.
on the other hand, take a look at the copyright notice, usualy it says duplication prohibited, or something along those lines.
So what is legal depends on what the terms of the copyright are, and how they fit with the law of the particular country.
(c) Anonymous Coward</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653095</id>
	<title>Re:Supreme Court?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247254680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By 'war criminal' you're referring to Augusto Pinochet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By 'war criminal ' you 're referring to Augusto Pinochet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By 'war criminal' you're referring to Augusto Pinochet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652295</id>
	<title>Re:downloading copyrighted material</title>
	<author>Shagg</author>
	<datestamp>1247251560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you go to microsoft.com or any other website, its assumed you have the right to download them.</p></div><p>No, the reason you can download MS software from microsoft.com is because MS is authorized to distribute their own copyrighted content.  It has nothing to do with the downloader needing any rights.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you go to microsoft.com or any other website , its assumed you have the right to download them.No , the reason you can download MS software from microsoft.com is because MS is authorized to distribute their own copyrighted content .
It has nothing to do with the downloader needing any rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you go to microsoft.com or any other website, its assumed you have the right to download them.No, the reason you can download MS software from microsoft.com is because MS is authorized to distribute their own copyrighted content.
It has nothing to do with the downloader needing any rights.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651911</id>
	<title>Re:downloading copyrighted material</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1247250180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously its only illegal if you do not have the rights to do so. When you go to microsoft.com or any other website, its assumed you have the right to download them. This is totally different than when you're downloading material that's copyrighted and you haven't got the permission to do so, be it either that you haven't paid for it or you do not have the licenses or any other reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously its only illegal if you do not have the rights to do so .
When you go to microsoft.com or any other website , its assumed you have the right to download them .
This is totally different than when you 're downloading material that 's copyrighted and you have n't got the permission to do so , be it either that you have n't paid for it or you do not have the licenses or any other reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously its only illegal if you do not have the rights to do so.
When you go to microsoft.com or any other website, its assumed you have the right to download them.
This is totally different than when you're downloading material that's copyrighted and you haven't got the permission to do so, be it either that you haven't paid for it or you do not have the licenses or any other reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677</id>
	<title>Spanish Justice : a oxymoron</title>
	<author>carnicer</author>
	<datestamp>1247249040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least that's what is said at least in Catalonia. In Spain, Justice is not reliable at all. It is collapsed and it's not independent from political forces. Therefore, the term "Spanish Justice" is an oxymoron, a contradictio in termini.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least that 's what is said at least in Catalonia .
In Spain , Justice is not reliable at all .
It is collapsed and it 's not independent from political forces .
Therefore , the term " Spanish Justice " is an oxymoron , a contradictio in termini .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least that's what is said at least in Catalonia.
In Spain, Justice is not reliable at all.
It is collapsed and it's not independent from political forces.
Therefore, the term "Spanish Justice" is an oxymoron, a contradictio in termini.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28655291</id>
	<title>Actually pretty bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247222640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To some degree you have to respect copyrights. If sharing movies music and video games was completely legal and very accessible, well you'd end up with either no industry or a sick amount of DRM. I personally support upholding movie and application copyrights but am for allowing for a copyright reform towards music, which has many many other sources of income aside from music sales(or at the very least a short copyright life).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To some degree you have to respect copyrights .
If sharing movies music and video games was completely legal and very accessible , well you 'd end up with either no industry or a sick amount of DRM .
I personally support upholding movie and application copyrights but am for allowing for a copyright reform towards music , which has many many other sources of income aside from music sales ( or at the very least a short copyright life ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To some degree you have to respect copyrights.
If sharing movies music and video games was completely legal and very accessible, well you'd end up with either no industry or a sick amount of DRM.
I personally support upholding movie and application copyrights but am for allowing for a copyright reform towards music, which has many many other sources of income aside from music sales(or at the very least a short copyright life).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653471</id>
	<title>Re:downloading copyrighted material</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247256180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incorrect - when they "authorize" a download they are licensing it. The downloader needs rights, which Microsoft is granting.</p><p>And OT, but that second apostrophe in your sig doesn't belong there. He's/she's/it's, his/hers/its.</p><p>You're welcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incorrect - when they " authorize " a download they are licensing it .
The downloader needs rights , which Microsoft is granting.And OT , but that second apostrophe in your sig does n't belong there .
He 's/she 's/it 's , his/hers/its.You 're welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incorrect - when they "authorize" a download they are licensing it.
The downloader needs rights, which Microsoft is granting.And OT, but that second apostrophe in your sig doesn't belong there.
He's/she's/it's, his/hers/its.You're welcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651407</id>
	<title>Easy solution for entertainment industries...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247247360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the entertainment industry have to do is set off a few bombs on trains in Madrid.  After that they can dictate terms to the Spanish government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the entertainment industry have to do is set off a few bombs on trains in Madrid .
After that they can dictate terms to the Spanish government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the entertainment industry have to do is set off a few bombs on trains in Madrid.
After that they can dictate terms to the Spanish government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651901</id>
	<title>Re:nice!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247250180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure you're joking, but if you're a US citizen, age of consent laws follow you to other countries to prevent sex tourism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure you 're joking , but if you 're a US citizen , age of consent laws follow you to other countries to prevent sex tourism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure you're joking, but if you're a US citizen, age of consent laws follow you to other countries to prevent sex tourism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28655589</id>
	<title>Sweden here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247224980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you spare us a proxy in Spain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you spare us a proxy in Spain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you spare us a proxy in Spain?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654691</id>
	<title>Re:Spanish Justice : a oxymoron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247218740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, in all other countries that I can think of, justice is snappy and completely independent of political pressures. Specially regarding copyright issues.</p><p>Oh well, even if your only goal was to thump on your proud catalonian-and-not-at-all-spanish chest, at least you managed to wedge in "oxymoron" and some latin. At least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , in all other countries that I can think of , justice is snappy and completely independent of political pressures .
Specially regarding copyright issues.Oh well , even if your only goal was to thump on your proud catalonian-and-not-at-all-spanish chest , at least you managed to wedge in " oxymoron " and some latin .
At least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, in all other countries that I can think of, justice is snappy and completely independent of political pressures.
Specially regarding copyright issues.Oh well, even if your only goal was to thump on your proud catalonian-and-not-at-all-spanish chest, at least you managed to wedge in "oxymoron" and some latin.
At least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28660335</id>
	<title>Re:Spanish Justice : a oxymoron - don't think so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At least that's what is said at least in Catalonia. In Spain, Justice is not reliable at all. It is collapsed and it's not independent from political forces. Therefore, the term "Spanish Justice" is an oxymoron, a contradictio in termini.</p></div><p>well, at least i can assure you it's independent from media groups. Now, seriously speaking, judges in spain are indepedent from political parties and from the administration - they cannot, by any reason, be removed from their position by any politician. However, the judges at the supreme court and the constitutional court are appointed by the parliament and the government. - i think this happens in many other countries.</p><p>I don't know who the hell talked to you about our legal system, but i would say he or she  was deliberately including a political bias as part the 'objective' information provided to you.</p><p>Check, if you want, the Corruption Perception Index issued by Transparency International and you'll see Spain it's quite a decent country.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least that 's what is said at least in Catalonia .
In Spain , Justice is not reliable at all .
It is collapsed and it 's not independent from political forces .
Therefore , the term " Spanish Justice " is an oxymoron , a contradictio in termini.well , at least i can assure you it 's independent from media groups .
Now , seriously speaking , judges in spain are indepedent from political parties and from the administration - they can not , by any reason , be removed from their position by any politician .
However , the judges at the supreme court and the constitutional court are appointed by the parliament and the government .
- i think this happens in many other countries.I do n't know who the hell talked to you about our legal system , but i would say he or she was deliberately including a political bias as part the 'objective ' information provided to you.Check , if you want , the Corruption Perception Index issued by Transparency International and you 'll see Spain it 's quite a decent country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least that's what is said at least in Catalonia.
In Spain, Justice is not reliable at all.
It is collapsed and it's not independent from political forces.
Therefore, the term "Spanish Justice" is an oxymoron, a contradictio in termini.well, at least i can assure you it's independent from media groups.
Now, seriously speaking, judges in spain are indepedent from political parties and from the administration - they cannot, by any reason, be removed from their position by any politician.
However, the judges at the supreme court and the constitutional court are appointed by the parliament and the government.
- i think this happens in many other countries.I don't know who the hell talked to you about our legal system, but i would say he or she  was deliberately including a political bias as part the 'objective' information provided to you.Check, if you want, the Corruption Perception Index issued by Transparency International and you'll see Spain it's quite a decent country.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652293</id>
	<title>How is this a change?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247251560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I know, downloading always was legal.<br>What was illegal, was uploading, when you did not have a license to do so.</p><p>The reason downloading is not illegal, is the same reason it is not illegal to buy stuff from somebody, when later, you read in the paper that the guy you bought it from had obtained it illegally. (Note that I'm avoiding the word "stolen" here, because stealing implies that the original owner does not have it anymore.)</p><p>The person that in these cases gets prosecuted, is the seller. You just show the cops your contract, with the address of the seller on it, and you're good. Of course you have to give the object back to the person it got stolen for. But you can sue the seller for the money.</p><p>At least in Germany.</p><p>I know this, because it happened to a friend of mine.</p><p>Of course, because the **AA do not care about any authors or rights, and their objective is not to protect anyone, but to make money trough mafia-like tactics, they do not care, and spread FUD all over the media, about downloading being illegal etc. Which the media picks up happily, bundling it into a nice sensationalist news.</p><p>So what changed exactly? Did the **AA equivalent of Spain run out of money? Because <em>that</em> would finally be nice news.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know , downloading always was legal.What was illegal , was uploading , when you did not have a license to do so.The reason downloading is not illegal , is the same reason it is not illegal to buy stuff from somebody , when later , you read in the paper that the guy you bought it from had obtained it illegally .
( Note that I 'm avoiding the word " stolen " here , because stealing implies that the original owner does not have it anymore .
) The person that in these cases gets prosecuted , is the seller .
You just show the cops your contract , with the address of the seller on it , and you 're good .
Of course you have to give the object back to the person it got stolen for .
But you can sue the seller for the money.At least in Germany.I know this , because it happened to a friend of mine.Of course , because the * * AA do not care about any authors or rights , and their objective is not to protect anyone , but to make money trough mafia-like tactics , they do not care , and spread FUD all over the media , about downloading being illegal etc .
Which the media picks up happily , bundling it into a nice sensationalist news.So what changed exactly ?
Did the * * AA equivalent of Spain run out of money ?
Because that would finally be nice news .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I know, downloading always was legal.What was illegal, was uploading, when you did not have a license to do so.The reason downloading is not illegal, is the same reason it is not illegal to buy stuff from somebody, when later, you read in the paper that the guy you bought it from had obtained it illegally.
(Note that I'm avoiding the word "stolen" here, because stealing implies that the original owner does not have it anymore.
)The person that in these cases gets prosecuted, is the seller.
You just show the cops your contract, with the address of the seller on it, and you're good.
Of course you have to give the object back to the person it got stolen for.
But you can sue the seller for the money.At least in Germany.I know this, because it happened to a friend of mine.Of course, because the **AA do not care about any authors or rights, and their objective is not to protect anyone, but to make money trough mafia-like tactics, they do not care, and spread FUD all over the media, about downloading being illegal etc.
Which the media picks up happily, bundling it into a nice sensationalist news.So what changed exactly?
Did the **AA equivalent of Spain run out of money?
Because that would finally be nice news.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654137</id>
	<title>Re:Supreme Court?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247259240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I have a hard time believing that higher judges would accept that mass internet copyright infringement is a right.</p></div><p>Actually, downloading copyrighted works 'for your own use' or giving copies to others without monetary gain is perfectly legal in Spain. This is stated clearly in our laws. Also , web pages are not guilty for offering links to copyrighted material, as long as they don't host the files themselves. On the other hand we pay a tax on blank digital media, including CD, DVD, HDD, phones, mp3 players and the whatnot. This tax goes to the SGAE (the spanish equivalent to RIAA) and other 'content creator' associations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a hard time believing that higher judges would accept that mass internet copyright infringement is a right.Actually , downloading copyrighted works 'for your own use ' or giving copies to others without monetary gain is perfectly legal in Spain .
This is stated clearly in our laws .
Also , web pages are not guilty for offering links to copyrighted material , as long as they do n't host the files themselves .
On the other hand we pay a tax on blank digital media , including CD , DVD , HDD , phones , mp3 players and the whatnot .
This tax goes to the SGAE ( the spanish equivalent to RIAA ) and other 'content creator ' associations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I have a hard time believing that higher judges would accept that mass internet copyright infringement is a right.Actually, downloading copyrighted works 'for your own use' or giving copies to others without monetary gain is perfectly legal in Spain.
This is stated clearly in our laws.
Also , web pages are not guilty for offering links to copyrighted material, as long as they don't host the files themselves.
On the other hand we pay a tax on blank digital media, including CD, DVD, HDD, phones, mp3 players and the whatnot.
This tax goes to the SGAE (the spanish equivalent to RIAA) and other 'content creator' associations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615</id>
	<title>Re:What isn't copyrighted material?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247248680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a thing called fair use.
In the Netherlands for example we pay about 24 eurocents on every empty cd or dvd we buy. In return it is legal to download music and movies for personal uses. I can imagine Spain also has this ruling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a thing called fair use .
In the Netherlands for example we pay about 24 eurocents on every empty cd or dvd we buy .
In return it is legal to download music and movies for personal uses .
I can imagine Spain also has this ruling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a thing called fair use.
In the Netherlands for example we pay about 24 eurocents on every empty cd or dvd we buy.
In return it is legal to download music and movies for personal uses.
I can imagine Spain also has this ruling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654485</id>
	<title>Re:downloading copyrighted material</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1247217600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It has nothing to do with the downloader needing any rights.</p></div><p>So if the downloader doesn't need rights, then I'm allowed to download whatever software or movies or music I want, so long as I'm not distributing them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with the downloader needing any rights.So if the downloader does n't need rights , then I 'm allowed to download whatever software or movies or music I want , so long as I 'm not distributing them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with the downloader needing any rights.So if the downloader doesn't need rights, then I'm allowed to download whatever software or movies or music I want, so long as I'm not distributing them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651969</id>
	<title>wwot fp..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247250420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>any7hi8g can visions going</htmltext>
<tokenext>any7hi8g can visions going</tokentext>
<sentencetext>any7hi8g can visions going</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652519</id>
	<title>Re:Supreme Court?</title>
	<author>c4t3y3</author>
	<datestamp>1247252400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I assume that Spain has a supreme court of some kind, and that there are avenues to appeal. I have a hard time believing that higher judges would accept that mass internet copyright infringement is a right.</p></div><p>Copyright infringement in Spain is only considered a crime if there is an intent to earn money with it. No judge is going to rule different because their duty is to enforce the law and the constitution, not to change it. To compensate the loss of income due to private copy, we pay taxes when we buy any device able to reproduce any copyrighted work (photocopiers, CDs, iPods, hard disks,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...). There is also a tax for TV and radio devices on public places.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But you never know. This is Spain, a country that has judges that take it upon themselves to prosecute foreign "war criminals", and was only recently rebuffed in their efforts to do so.</p></div><p>That's because Spain signed The Protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. According to it, states have a duty to try or extradite anyone charged with having committed any violation to the Geneva Conventions on the basis of universal jurisdiction.</p><p>As of 14 January 2007 it had been ratified by 167 countries, with the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Iraq being notable exceptions. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume that Spain has a supreme court of some kind , and that there are avenues to appeal .
I have a hard time believing that higher judges would accept that mass internet copyright infringement is a right.Copyright infringement in Spain is only considered a crime if there is an intent to earn money with it .
No judge is going to rule different because their duty is to enforce the law and the constitution , not to change it .
To compensate the loss of income due to private copy , we pay taxes when we buy any device able to reproduce any copyrighted work ( photocopiers , CDs , iPods , hard disks , ... ) .
There is also a tax for TV and radio devices on public places.But you never know .
This is Spain , a country that has judges that take it upon themselves to prosecute foreign " war criminals " , and was only recently rebuffed in their efforts to do so.That 's because Spain signed The Protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts .
According to it , states have a duty to try or extradite anyone charged with having committed any violation to the Geneva Conventions on the basis of universal jurisdiction.As of 14 January 2007 it had been ratified by 167 countries , with the United States , Israel , Iran , Pakistan , Turkey and Iraq being notable exceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume that Spain has a supreme court of some kind, and that there are avenues to appeal.
I have a hard time believing that higher judges would accept that mass internet copyright infringement is a right.Copyright infringement in Spain is only considered a crime if there is an intent to earn money with it.
No judge is going to rule different because their duty is to enforce the law and the constitution, not to change it.
To compensate the loss of income due to private copy, we pay taxes when we buy any device able to reproduce any copyrighted work (photocopiers, CDs, iPods, hard disks, ...).
There is also a tax for TV and radio devices on public places.But you never know.
This is Spain, a country that has judges that take it upon themselves to prosecute foreign "war criminals", and was only recently rebuffed in their efforts to do so.That's because Spain signed The Protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.
According to it, states have a duty to try or extradite anyone charged with having committed any violation to the Geneva Conventions on the basis of universal jurisdiction.As of 14 January 2007 it had been ratified by 167 countries, with the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Iraq being notable exceptions. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651473</id>
	<title>pre-trial ruling</title>
	<author>memnock</author>
	<datestamp>1247247720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm assuming this has at least one or two more appeals after the real trial before downloading copyrighted material is found to actually be illegal.</p><p>of course, IANAL, especially not a Spanish lawyer, so i could be totally wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm assuming this has at least one or two more appeals after the real trial before downloading copyrighted material is found to actually be illegal.of course , IANAL , especially not a Spanish lawyer , so i could be totally wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm assuming this has at least one or two more appeals after the real trial before downloading copyrighted material is found to actually be illegal.of course, IANAL, especially not a Spanish lawyer, so i could be totally wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577</id>
	<title>Short lived ruling?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247248440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that the ruling seems to violate several international agreements on copyright, I wonder how long it will last.</p><p>I also don't get the common sense aspect of it.  If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy, how would companies stay in business?  Well, they'd do it by erecting technical barriers to copying.  DRM plus a million.  Because they would have to.</p><p>If you justify copyright infringment based on "information wants to be free", then expect people to try their damnedest to change what their information wants to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the ruling seems to violate several international agreements on copyright , I wonder how long it will last.I also do n't get the common sense aspect of it .
If , instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy , all sales were legally lost to piracy , how would companies stay in business ?
Well , they 'd do it by erecting technical barriers to copying .
DRM plus a million .
Because they would have to.If you justify copyright infringment based on " information wants to be free " , then expect people to try their damnedest to change what their information wants to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the ruling seems to violate several international agreements on copyright, I wonder how long it will last.I also don't get the common sense aspect of it.
If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy, how would companies stay in business?
Well, they'd do it by erecting technical barriers to copying.
DRM plus a million.
Because they would have to.If you justify copyright infringment based on "information wants to be free", then expect people to try their damnedest to change what their information wants to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651531</id>
	<title>nice!</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1247248200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I can have legally approved sex with a 13 year old AND listen to my downloaded Counting Crows album at the same time... *take a holiday in spain, leave my wings behind me*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I can have legally approved sex with a 13 year old AND listen to my downloaded Counting Crows album at the same time... * take a holiday in spain , leave my wings behind me *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I can have legally approved sex with a 13 year old AND listen to my downloaded Counting Crows album at the same time... *take a holiday in spain, leave my wings behind me*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652991</id>
	<title>Re:Spanish Justice : a oxymoron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247254200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oops, like here!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oops , like here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oops, like here!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652087</id>
	<title>Re:Practice!</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1247250840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Burma Shave</htmltext>
<tokenext>Burma Shave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Burma Shave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654229</id>
	<title>Re:Short lived ruling?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247216520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--&gt; If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy, how would companies stay in business?</p><p>Ask the player piano makers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-- &gt; If , instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy , all sales were legally lost to piracy , how would companies stay in business ? Ask the player piano makers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--&gt; If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy, how would companies stay in business?Ask the player piano makers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28704745</id>
	<title>Re:downloading copyrighted material</title>
	<author>Shagg</author>
	<datestamp>1247679600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they don't authorize a download with regards to copyright, that's the point.  They authorize the distributor.  Copyright law has to do with authorized distribution of content, it has nothing to do with receiving/downloading it.  Whether Microsoft is giving it away for free or licensing/selling it has nothing to do with copyright.  Microsoft can give out the content however they want because they are an authorized distributor.  The rights of the downloader have nothing to do with copyright law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they do n't authorize a download with regards to copyright , that 's the point .
They authorize the distributor .
Copyright law has to do with authorized distribution of content , it has nothing to do with receiving/downloading it .
Whether Microsoft is giving it away for free or licensing/selling it has nothing to do with copyright .
Microsoft can give out the content however they want because they are an authorized distributor .
The rights of the downloader have nothing to do with copyright law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they don't authorize a download with regards to copyright, that's the point.
They authorize the distributor.
Copyright law has to do with authorized distribution of content, it has nothing to do with receiving/downloading it.
Whether Microsoft is giving it away for free or licensing/selling it has nothing to do with copyright.
Microsoft can give out the content however they want because they are an authorized distributor.
The rights of the downloader have nothing to do with copyright law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651623</id>
	<title>Shhhh!</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1247248740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone shhhh!  Stop posting these stories, or else we're gonna have to host TPB and its ilk in outer space or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone shhhh !
Stop posting these stories , or else we 're gon na have to host TPB and its ilk in outer space or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone shhhh!
Stop posting these stories, or else we're gonna have to host TPB and its ilk in outer space or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28683121</id>
	<title>LOL!!</title>
	<author>xmvince</author>
	<datestamp>1247481600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SPAIN, HERE WE COME!</htmltext>
<tokenext>SPAIN , HERE WE COME !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SPAIN, HERE WE COME!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653627</id>
	<title>Re:What isn't copyrighted material?</title>
	<author>starfishsystems</author>
	<datestamp>1247256720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have this in Canada also.  I've been paying a surcharge on data backup media for <i>years</i> just in case some of the data might be copyrighted.
<br> <br>
Canada is now under pressure from the recording industry, which was responsible for advocating the present arrangement, to revoke it in place of greatly increased restrictions on copying freedom.  I say that's really too bad, but you're late to your own party.  I've paid my share.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have this in Canada also .
I 've been paying a surcharge on data backup media for years just in case some of the data might be copyrighted .
Canada is now under pressure from the recording industry , which was responsible for advocating the present arrangement , to revoke it in place of greatly increased restrictions on copying freedom .
I say that 's really too bad , but you 're late to your own party .
I 've paid my share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have this in Canada also.
I've been paying a surcharge on data backup media for years just in case some of the data might be copyrighted.
Canada is now under pressure from the recording industry, which was responsible for advocating the present arrangement, to revoke it in place of greatly increased restrictions on copying freedom.
I say that's really too bad, but you're late to your own party.
I've paid my share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654121</id>
	<title>Thank you, captain obvious.</title>
	<author>loufoque</author>
	<datestamp>1247259180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now a judge has decided that sharing between users for no profit via P2P doesn't breach copyright laws and sites should be presumed innocent until proved otherwise</p></div></blockquote><p>Thank you, captain obvious.<br>It's nothing new. It has always been like that, and worldwide.</p><p>I wonder why people believe this is not true. Misinformation spread by RIAA and its friends perhaps?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now a judge has decided that sharing between users for no profit via P2P does n't breach copyright laws and sites should be presumed innocent until proved otherwiseThank you , captain obvious.It 's nothing new .
It has always been like that , and worldwide.I wonder why people believe this is not true .
Misinformation spread by RIAA and its friends perhaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now a judge has decided that sharing between users for no profit via P2P doesn't breach copyright laws and sites should be presumed innocent until proved otherwiseThank you, captain obvious.It's nothing new.
It has always been like that, and worldwide.I wonder why people believe this is not true.
Misinformation spread by RIAA and its friends perhaps?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652013</id>
	<title>Re:Short lived ruling?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1247250540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, at least, treaty is the province of the executive branch of government. Treaties are supposed to be ratified by Congress.  If/when the courts rule that an executive treaty is unconstitutional, then it goes back to the executive and legislative branches to be reexamined.</p><p>No matter what the law and/or any treaty might say, we all know that copyright law has been raped by the "rights holders".  It all needs to be reexamined, if not completely rebuilt.  The actions of RIAA-like organizations in recent years have been simply insane.</p><p>We need judges in every country in the world to make rulings like this, and goad the lawmakers to address the problems with copyright as well as patent law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , at least , treaty is the province of the executive branch of government .
Treaties are supposed to be ratified by Congress .
If/when the courts rule that an executive treaty is unconstitutional , then it goes back to the executive and legislative branches to be reexamined.No matter what the law and/or any treaty might say , we all know that copyright law has been raped by the " rights holders " .
It all needs to be reexamined , if not completely rebuilt .
The actions of RIAA-like organizations in recent years have been simply insane.We need judges in every country in the world to make rulings like this , and goad the lawmakers to address the problems with copyright as well as patent law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, at least, treaty is the province of the executive branch of government.
Treaties are supposed to be ratified by Congress.
If/when the courts rule that an executive treaty is unconstitutional, then it goes back to the executive and legislative branches to be reexamined.No matter what the law and/or any treaty might say, we all know that copyright law has been raped by the "rights holders".
It all needs to be reexamined, if not completely rebuilt.
The actions of RIAA-like organizations in recent years have been simply insane.We need judges in every country in the world to make rulings like this, and goad the lawmakers to address the problems with copyright as well as patent law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652181</id>
	<title>ep!!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247251140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">serie5 of 3xploding</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>serie5 of 3xploding [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>serie5 of 3xploding [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654587</id>
	<title>Spain is a third world shithole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247218260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those assholes torture bulls to death just for fun. To make it even worse, these days most major cities have been infested by spics from Ecuador and other South American shitholes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those assholes torture bulls to death just for fun .
To make it even worse , these days most major cities have been infested by spics from Ecuador and other South American shitholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those assholes torture bulls to death just for fun.
To make it even worse, these days most major cities have been infested by spics from Ecuador and other South American shitholes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651753</id>
	<title>International backlash</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1247249460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel almost certain that Spain will face an international backlash because of this. In all likelihood, I'm guessing that the international community will put pressure on them to reverse these decisions. Nevertheless, as a piracy supporter, I'm delighted by this news and hope that other countries will follow suit. I'm not getting my hopes up quickly though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel almost certain that Spain will face an international backlash because of this .
In all likelihood , I 'm guessing that the international community will put pressure on them to reverse these decisions .
Nevertheless , as a piracy supporter , I 'm delighted by this news and hope that other countries will follow suit .
I 'm not getting my hopes up quickly though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel almost certain that Spain will face an international backlash because of this.
In all likelihood, I'm guessing that the international community will put pressure on them to reverse these decisions.
Nevertheless, as a piracy supporter, I'm delighted by this news and hope that other countries will follow suit.
I'm not getting my hopes up quickly though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652003</id>
	<title>Re:What isn't copyrighted material?</title>
	<author>JCZwart</author>
	<datestamp>1247250540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the Netherlands, copying a book or anything else in public libraries also is more expensive, which serves as yet another arrangement for allowing the copying of copyrighted works. Also, a similar mechanism was proposed for taxing other storage media, like hard drives and MP3 players.<br>
<br>
Yet, the Dutch copyright watchdog finds this not being illegal of downloading for personal use a loophole in copyright law. Someone proposing some kind of law against it is only a matter of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the Netherlands , copying a book or anything else in public libraries also is more expensive , which serves as yet another arrangement for allowing the copying of copyrighted works .
Also , a similar mechanism was proposed for taxing other storage media , like hard drives and MP3 players .
Yet , the Dutch copyright watchdog finds this not being illegal of downloading for personal use a loophole in copyright law .
Someone proposing some kind of law against it is only a matter of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the Netherlands, copying a book or anything else in public libraries also is more expensive, which serves as yet another arrangement for allowing the copying of copyrighted works.
Also, a similar mechanism was proposed for taxing other storage media, like hard drives and MP3 players.
Yet, the Dutch copyright watchdog finds this not being illegal of downloading for personal use a loophole in copyright law.
Someone proposing some kind of law against it is only a matter of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652049</id>
	<title>Re:Spanish Justice : a oxymoron</title>
	<author>c4t3y3</author>
	<datestamp>1247250720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are intentionally lying. Read the truth from a dozen newspapers by googling [justicia catalu&#195;&#177;a colapso]. Unfortunately justice in catalonia is so overloaded as in the rest of the country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are intentionally lying .
Read the truth from a dozen newspapers by googling [ justicia catalu     a colapso ] .
Unfortunately justice in catalonia is so overloaded as in the rest of the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are intentionally lying.
Read the truth from a dozen newspapers by googling [justicia cataluÃ±a colapso].
Unfortunately justice in catalonia is so overloaded as in the rest of the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651557</id>
	<title>Practice!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247248320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want you to say:</p><p>Lack of gain<br>in Spain<br>Drives RIAA mainly<br>INSANE!!</p><p>fifty times. You'll get much further with the Lord if you learn not to offend His ears.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want you to say : Lack of gainin SpainDrives RIAA mainlyINSANE !
! fifty times .
You 'll get much further with the Lord if you learn not to offend His ears .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want you to say:Lack of gainin SpainDrives RIAA mainlyINSANE!
!fifty times.
You'll get much further with the Lord if you learn not to offend His ears.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652143</id>
	<title>Re:downloading copyrighted material</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247251020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because Microsoft.com actually has the rights to distribute such copies.</p><p>AnonCowardx on random bit torrent sites does not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because Microsoft.com actually has the rights to distribute such copies.AnonCowardx on random bit torrent sites does not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because Microsoft.com actually has the rights to distribute such copies.AnonCowardx on random bit torrent sites does not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653955</id>
	<title>Re:Short lived ruling?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247258400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy, how would companies stay in business?</i></p><p>Don't sell novels, sell books. Don't sell movies, sell DVDs. Don't sell music, sell CDs. Most people will still buy books, DVDs, and CDs whether they can get the content for free or not, and those that won't are going to pirate them anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If , instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy , all sales were legally lost to piracy , how would companies stay in business ? Do n't sell novels , sell books .
Do n't sell movies , sell DVDs .
Do n't sell music , sell CDs .
Most people will still buy books , DVDs , and CDs whether they can get the content for free or not , and those that wo n't are going to pirate them anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy, how would companies stay in business?Don't sell novels, sell books.
Don't sell movies, sell DVDs.
Don't sell music, sell CDs.
Most people will still buy books, DVDs, and CDs whether they can get the content for free or not, and those that won't are going to pirate them anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652301</id>
	<title>Re:What isn't copyrighted material?</title>
	<author>gstoddart</author>
	<datestamp>1247251560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And this makes sense? I buy all my music and use CD/DVD for data copying. So I'd have to subsidize someone who doesn't feel he has to buy music/movies? What a joke.</p></div></blockquote><p>It doesn't make sense, but it was the media companies who pushed for the levies in the first place.</p><p>Once they realized that everyone said "ok, screw you, I'm downloading since I've already paid you" they wanted to have their cake and eat it too -- they want the levy <em>and</em> for downloading to be illegal.</p><p>I'm betting that a couple of courts have sided with only dinging people once (and supported the notion of fair use) and said if there's a levy, the download is legit.</p><p>Since I know I pay the levy here in Canada, I wouldn't feel so bad about copying music if I was so inclined.</p><p>Cheers</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this makes sense ?
I buy all my music and use CD/DVD for data copying .
So I 'd have to subsidize someone who does n't feel he has to buy music/movies ?
What a joke.It does n't make sense , but it was the media companies who pushed for the levies in the first place.Once they realized that everyone said " ok , screw you , I 'm downloading since I 've already paid you " they wanted to have their cake and eat it too -- they want the levy and for downloading to be illegal.I 'm betting that a couple of courts have sided with only dinging people once ( and supported the notion of fair use ) and said if there 's a levy , the download is legit.Since I know I pay the levy here in Canada , I would n't feel so bad about copying music if I was so inclined.Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this makes sense?
I buy all my music and use CD/DVD for data copying.
So I'd have to subsidize someone who doesn't feel he has to buy music/movies?
What a joke.It doesn't make sense, but it was the media companies who pushed for the levies in the first place.Once they realized that everyone said "ok, screw you, I'm downloading since I've already paid you" they wanted to have their cake and eat it too -- they want the levy and for downloading to be illegal.I'm betting that a couple of courts have sided with only dinging people once (and supported the notion of fair use) and said if there's a levy, the download is legit.Since I know I pay the levy here in Canada, I wouldn't feel so bad about copying music if I was so inclined.Cheers
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651857</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28656395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28668775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28655989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28656309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28657925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28656797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28704745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28655447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28660335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1529215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28657925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652295
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654485
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653991
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653471
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28704745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28656309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28668775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654137
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28656797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28660335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28655447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28656395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651857
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652301
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653051
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652215
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28655989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1529215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28651731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28653939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28654417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1529215.28652267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
