<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_10_2219208</id>
	<title>RIAA Moves To Keep Revenue Info Secret</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247224260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">NewYorkCountryLawyer</a> writes <i>"In the Boston, Massachusetts case <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=SONY\_v\_Tenenbaum">SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum</a>, the Court had <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#4492517087543183690">ordered the RIAA to produce certain revenue information</a>, which would be relevant to a determination of the 'fair use' defense. The RIAA has now moved for <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#465548795056160739">a protective order to keep the information 'confidential.'</a> In the opinion of the undersigned, the fact that the motion is made jointly by four competitors shows that any claim suggesting the information is valuable or 'proprietary' would be unfounded, and the sole purpose for making the motion is to keep the information out of the hands of lawyers for other defendants, thus increasing the defense costs in other cases."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " In the Boston , Massachusetts case SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum , the Court had ordered the RIAA to produce certain revenue information , which would be relevant to a determination of the 'fair use ' defense .
The RIAA has now moved for a protective order to keep the information 'confidential .
' In the opinion of the undersigned , the fact that the motion is made jointly by four competitors shows that any claim suggesting the information is valuable or 'proprietary ' would be unfounded , and the sole purpose for making the motion is to keep the information out of the hands of lawyers for other defendants , thus increasing the defense costs in other cases .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the Boston, Massachusetts case SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Court had ordered the RIAA to produce certain revenue information, which would be relevant to a determination of the 'fair use' defense.
The RIAA has now moved for a protective order to keep the information 'confidential.
' In the opinion of the undersigned, the fact that the motion is made jointly by four competitors shows that any claim suggesting the information is valuable or 'proprietary' would be unfounded, and the sole purpose for making the motion is to keep the information out of the hands of lawyers for other defendants, thus increasing the defense costs in other cases.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656105</id>
	<title>Why is it....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247228820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had this big huge rant lined up.... <br>
And, then I realized it wasn't going to do any good at all.<br>
All that's left to do is sigh.... <br>
<br>
<br>
Oh... and download some music from megaupload... <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D <br> <br>
p.s. that was a joke of course!  I use other download services!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had this big huge rant lined up... . And , then I realized it was n't going to do any good at all .
All that 's left to do is sigh... . Oh... and download some music from megaupload... : D p.s .
that was a joke of course !
I use other download services !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had this big huge rant lined up.... 
And, then I realized it wasn't going to do any good at all.
All that's left to do is sigh.... 


Oh... and download some music from megaupload...  :D  
p.s.
that was a joke of course!
I use other download services!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28658643</id>
	<title>Re:FACTS are DANGEROUS</title>
	<author>Pranadevil2k</author>
	<datestamp>1247308140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems we already sold this song once in 1977 for Bee Gees tickets... and then again in 1983 for half a mallomar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems we already sold this song once in 1977 for Bee Gees tickets... and then again in 1983 for half a mallomar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems we already sold this song once in 1977 for Bee Gees tickets... and then again in 1983 for half a mallomar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28721313</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1247776200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657037</id>
	<title>Re:Can the Judge say "maybe"?</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1247237880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can the judge make a ruling like, "Ok, I'll order this information kept secret for now, but in the interest of expediency you have to turn the information over today, and I'll entertain arguments as to why I should or shouldn't allow it to stay that way after the defendant has had a chance to look over the information?"</p></div></blockquote><p>The judge can issue an order for <i>en camera</i> review - essentially he get's to look at it first without any promises that it will ever go to the defense. So yes, he can certainly gag it for now and then remove the gag at any time it's petitioned to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can the judge make a ruling like , " Ok , I 'll order this information kept secret for now , but in the interest of expediency you have to turn the information over today , and I 'll entertain arguments as to why I should or should n't allow it to stay that way after the defendant has had a chance to look over the information ?
" The judge can issue an order for en camera review - essentially he get 's to look at it first without any promises that it will ever go to the defense .
So yes , he can certainly gag it for now and then remove the gag at any time it 's petitioned to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can the judge make a ruling like, "Ok, I'll order this information kept secret for now, but in the interest of expediency you have to turn the information over today, and I'll entertain arguments as to why I should or shouldn't allow it to stay that way after the defendant has had a chance to look over the information?
"The judge can issue an order for en camera review - essentially he get's to look at it first without any promises that it will ever go to the defense.
So yes, he can certainly gag it for now and then remove the gag at any time it's petitioned to do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656123</id>
	<title>Then they can't "prove" damages</title>
	<author>Green Salad</author>
	<datestamp>1247228940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's merely an assertion of damages.  Lost revenue?  Prove it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's merely an assertion of damages .
Lost revenue ?
Prove it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's merely an assertion of damages.
Lost revenue?
Prove it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656977</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247237040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?</i></p><p>Because information used to project authority must always be closely scrutinized, in broad daylight. The file sharers' info is a personal matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information ? Because information used to project authority must always be closely scrutinized , in broad daylight .
The file sharers ' info is a personal matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?Because information used to project authority must always be closely scrutinized, in broad daylight.
The file sharers' info is a personal matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659449</id>
	<title>Re:WTF ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247323020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If all of the data is published anonymously then you don't which specific competitor any specific number belongs to</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If all of the data is published anonymously then you do n't which specific competitor any specific number belongs to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all of the data is published anonymously then you don't which specific competitor any specific number belongs to</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656627</id>
	<title>Re:Corporation?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1247233440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's one thing to say, "We made $X in the last year," and another to break down that $X to say exactly how much came from each song, how much came from iTunes and how much came from WalMart, and describe exactly where all those numbers came from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's one thing to say , " We made $ X in the last year , " and another to break down that $ X to say exactly how much came from each song , how much came from iTunes and how much came from WalMart , and describe exactly where all those numbers came from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's one thing to say, "We made $X in the last year," and another to break down that $X to say exactly how much came from each song, how much came from iTunes and how much came from WalMart, and describe exactly where all those numbers came from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657257</id>
	<title>chain of ownership</title>
	<author>belmolis</author>
	<datestamp>1247240520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Why would ownership of rights be confidential?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would ownership of rights be confidential ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Why would ownership of rights be confidential?
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656243</id>
	<title>How does thie help the defense?</title>
	<author>mark\_hill97</author>
	<datestamp>1247230020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forgive my ignorance, but how does this help the defense to have this info? It is my understanding that statutory damages are for when actual damages are hard to prove. The damages are pretty hard to prove so how does this help?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgive my ignorance , but how does this help the defense to have this info ?
It is my understanding that statutory damages are for when actual damages are hard to prove .
The damages are pretty hard to prove so how does this help ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgive my ignorance, but how does this help the defense to have this info?
It is my understanding that statutory damages are for when actual damages are hard to prove.
The damages are pretty hard to prove so how does this help?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656179</id>
	<title>Not exactly shocking</title>
	<author>seekret</author>
	<datestamp>1247229540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can anyone say they are honestly surprised by this? The government needs to start acting on the citizens behalf and bring the RIAA down already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone say they are honestly surprised by this ?
The government needs to start acting on the citizens behalf and bring the RIAA down already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone say they are honestly surprised by this?
The government needs to start acting on the citizens behalf and bring the RIAA down already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659023</id>
	<title>Re:Only in america -</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247316840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>lawyers can attempt to hide something that is shown as PROOF of damages behind the entire lawsuit, behind the 'private property' bullshit.</p></div><p>Our system of checks and balances is a little more complex than you're making it out to be. And their refusal will likely cost them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lawyers can attempt to hide something that is shown as PROOF of damages behind the entire lawsuit , behind the 'private property ' bullshit.Our system of checks and balances is a little more complex than you 're making it out to be .
And their refusal will likely cost them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lawyers can attempt to hide something that is shown as PROOF of damages behind the entire lawsuit, behind the 'private property' bullshit.Our system of checks and balances is a little more complex than you're making it out to be.
And their refusal will likely cost them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656009</id>
	<title>isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1247228100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyway to push that so that the Feds look at this as part of of an Anti-Trust investigation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway to push that so that the Feds look at this as part of of an Anti-Trust investigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway to push that so that the Feds look at this as part of of an Anti-Trust investigation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656649</id>
	<title>Only in america -</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1247233560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lawyers can attempt to hide something that is shown as PROOF of damages behind the entire lawsuit, behind the 'private property' bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lawyers can attempt to hide something that is shown as PROOF of damages behind the entire lawsuit , behind the 'private property ' bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lawyers can attempt to hide something that is shown as PROOF of damages behind the entire lawsuit, behind the 'private property' bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657011</id>
	<title>Re:The Relevance of Revenue</title>
	<author>Lloyd\_Bryant</author>
	<datestamp>1247237520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Explain to me why the revenue generated by a copyrighted work has any relevance to the question of "fair use."</p></div><p>One of the factors used in determining whether something was fair use or not is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work".</p><p>I suspect that the defense is trying to show that the songs in question made tons of money, despite the actions of the defendant, and as such this test might favor the defendant.</p><p>I don't know whether or not this will actually *work*, mind you, but it seems to provide a handle to request such information.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain to me why the revenue generated by a copyrighted work has any relevance to the question of " fair use .
" One of the factors used in determining whether something was fair use or not is " the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work " .I suspect that the defense is trying to show that the songs in question made tons of money , despite the actions of the defendant , and as such this test might favor the defendant.I do n't know whether or not this will actually * work * , mind you , but it seems to provide a handle to request such information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explain to me why the revenue generated by a copyrighted work has any relevance to the question of "fair use.
"One of the factors used in determining whether something was fair use or not is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work".I suspect that the defense is trying to show that the songs in question made tons of money, despite the actions of the defendant, and as such this test might favor the defendant.I don't know whether or not this will actually *work*, mind you, but it seems to provide a handle to request such information.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656785</id>
	<title>FACTS are DANGEROUS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247235000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"and (2) a number of confidential agreements demonstrating Plaintiffs&#226;(TM) ownership of certain of the sound recordings at issue in the case."</p><p>ummmm? They don't want to show the title chain of ownership because then an actual assessment of its worth could be accurately made.</p><p>i.e. Ownership has already changed hands so many times for such paltry sums that any jury or judge would see that it is patently ridiculous for you to sue suzie homemaker for $35M for distributing 30 copies free. RIAA arguement that we're 'protecting artists' is COMPLETELY baseless, as we rip artists off spectacularly and on a regular basis. Can't have those details getting out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" and ( 2 ) a number of confidential agreements demonstrating Plaintiffs   ( TM ) ownership of certain of the sound recordings at issue in the case. " ummmm ?
They do n't want to show the title chain of ownership because then an actual assessment of its worth could be accurately made.i.e .
Ownership has already changed hands so many times for such paltry sums that any jury or judge would see that it is patently ridiculous for you to sue suzie homemaker for $ 35M for distributing 30 copies free .
RIAA arguement that we 're 'protecting artists ' is COMPLETELY baseless , as we rip artists off spectacularly and on a regular basis .
Ca n't have those details getting out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and (2) a number of confidential agreements demonstrating Plaintiffsâ(TM) ownership of certain of the sound recordings at issue in the case."ummmm?
They don't want to show the title chain of ownership because then an actual assessment of its worth could be accurately made.i.e.
Ownership has already changed hands so many times for such paltry sums that any jury or judge would see that it is patently ridiculous for you to sue suzie homemaker for $35M for distributing 30 copies free.
RIAA arguement that we're 'protecting artists' is COMPLETELY baseless, as we rip artists off spectacularly and on a regular basis.
Can't have those details getting out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657901</id>
	<title>Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247250660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see the problem here. I'm sure they have good reasons for withholding the information. It is not like they've done anything untrustworthy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the problem here .
I 'm sure they have good reasons for withholding the information .
It is not like they 've done anything untrustworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the problem here.
I'm sure they have good reasons for withholding the information.
It is not like they've done anything untrustworthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28658737</id>
	<title>Re:Can the Judge say "maybe"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247309640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(Wouldn't that be ex parte and as such frowned upon?)</i> </p><p>Damned nearly everything they do is ex parte. The judges don't frown. Same with the bullshit of sending reams of "settlement" papers to schools, telling them to dig up the names of the miscreants and deliver the paperwork to the kids. No legally binding authority.</p><p>Want proof? Harvard had the balls to tell the **AA they were choosing not to be unpaid, unwilling agents for the **AA. "Send us properly prepared legal sub poenas if you want any action. Otherwise, thanks for all your oversized pieces of asswipe, of which we are currently in receipt."</p><p>Hah -- captcha = inequity</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Would n't that be ex parte and as such frowned upon ?
) Damned nearly everything they do is ex parte .
The judges do n't frown .
Same with the bullshit of sending reams of " settlement " papers to schools , telling them to dig up the names of the miscreants and deliver the paperwork to the kids .
No legally binding authority.Want proof ?
Harvard had the balls to tell the * * AA they were choosing not to be unpaid , unwilling agents for the * * AA .
" Send us properly prepared legal sub poenas if you want any action .
Otherwise , thanks for all your oversized pieces of asswipe , of which we are currently in receipt .
" Hah -- captcha = inequity</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Wouldn't that be ex parte and as such frowned upon?
) Damned nearly everything they do is ex parte.
The judges don't frown.
Same with the bullshit of sending reams of "settlement" papers to schools, telling them to dig up the names of the miscreants and deliver the paperwork to the kids.
No legally binding authority.Want proof?
Harvard had the balls to tell the **AA they were choosing not to be unpaid, unwilling agents for the **AA.
"Send us properly prepared legal sub poenas if you want any action.
Otherwise, thanks for all your oversized pieces of asswipe, of which we are currently in receipt.
"Hah -- captcha = inequity</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659595</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247324220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?</p></div><p>Because a corporation is not a person.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information ? Because a corporation is not a person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?Because a corporation is not a person.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659045</id>
	<title>Re:The Relevance of Revenue</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247317140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In a routine civil suit for damages, the jury never gets to hear testimony about the financial state of the plaintiff or defendant.</p></div><p>These are most definitely <i>not</i> routine suits. Furthermore, the judge is telling them to provide financial data on the specific songs that the RIAA has claimed were illegally distributed, to which they have made an outrageous claim of value and loss of revenue. They opened the door to this, not the defendant, so it sounds pretty reasonable to me, on the surface anyway. But then again, I'm not a copyright lawyer so I'll leave it at that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a routine civil suit for damages , the jury never gets to hear testimony about the financial state of the plaintiff or defendant.These are most definitely not routine suits .
Furthermore , the judge is telling them to provide financial data on the specific songs that the RIAA has claimed were illegally distributed , to which they have made an outrageous claim of value and loss of revenue .
They opened the door to this , not the defendant , so it sounds pretty reasonable to me , on the surface anyway .
But then again , I 'm not a copyright lawyer so I 'll leave it at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a routine civil suit for damages, the jury never gets to hear testimony about the financial state of the plaintiff or defendant.These are most definitely not routine suits.
Furthermore, the judge is telling them to provide financial data on the specific songs that the RIAA has claimed were illegally distributed, to which they have made an outrageous claim of value and loss of revenue.
They opened the door to this, not the defendant, so it sounds pretty reasonable to me, on the surface anyway.
But then again, I'm not a copyright lawyer so I'll leave it at that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656041</id>
	<title>Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1247228340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Children throw tantrums and do irrational things to defend their viewpoints as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Children throw tantrums and do irrational things to defend their viewpoints as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Children throw tantrums and do irrational things to defend their viewpoints as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656087</id>
	<title>Corporation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247228700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If so they have to publish yearly statements of income/profit/loss/etc.  If they are faking the numbers, its fraud time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If so they have to publish yearly statements of income/profit/loss/etc .
If they are faking the numbers , its fraud time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If so they have to publish yearly statements of income/profit/loss/etc.
If they are faking the numbers, its fraud time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28721357</id>
	<title>Re:I call bullshit</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1247776380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can they even prove that infringement took place?</p><p>all the proof they had was the files they allegedly downloaded from the defendants computer.  Seeing as how they had the authorization to copy those files from the rights holder, how did infringement even take place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can they even prove that infringement took place ? all the proof they had was the files they allegedly downloaded from the defendants computer .
Seeing as how they had the authorization to copy those files from the rights holder , how did infringement even take place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can they even prove that infringement took place?all the proof they had was the files they allegedly downloaded from the defendants computer.
Seeing as how they had the authorization to copy those files from the rights holder, how did infringement even take place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28663061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656621</id>
	<title>Here's How</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247233440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two words: Income Tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two words : Income Tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two words: Income Tax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656865</id>
	<title>The Relevance of Revenue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247236020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Explain to me why the revenue generated by a copyrighted work has any relevance to the question of "fair use."</p><p>To me this looks like the Robin Hood defense.</p><p>Which usually ends with the jury delivering a tar and feathers hand-off of the geek to the Sheriff of Nottingham.</p><p>In a routine civil suit for damages, the jury <b>never</b> gets to hear testimony about the financial state of the plaintiff or defendant.</p><p>The geek drawing down three to four times the salary of the juror he faces might want to think twice before opening up this particular can of worms.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain to me why the revenue generated by a copyrighted work has any relevance to the question of " fair use .
" To me this looks like the Robin Hood defense.Which usually ends with the jury delivering a tar and feathers hand-off of the geek to the Sheriff of Nottingham.In a routine civil suit for damages , the jury never gets to hear testimony about the financial state of the plaintiff or defendant.The geek drawing down three to four times the salary of the juror he faces might want to think twice before opening up this particular can of worms .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explain to me why the revenue generated by a copyrighted work has any relevance to the question of "fair use.
"To me this looks like the Robin Hood defense.Which usually ends with the jury delivering a tar and feathers hand-off of the geek to the Sheriff of Nottingham.In a routine civil suit for damages, the jury never gets to hear testimony about the financial state of the plaintiff or defendant.The geek drawing down three to four times the salary of the juror he faces might want to think twice before opening up this particular can of worms.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656497</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247232240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is there a judge alive not willing to put up with these shenanigans?</p></div></blockquote><p>Shenanigans?  They're not refusing to provide the requested information.  They're just asking for a protective order so that certain information is used only for the trial and not disclosed to the public.  These requests are commonplace and parties usually agree to them without putting up a fight.</p><p>Consider production of a hard drive in a file sharing case.  It is only fair that the copyright owner agree to a protective order limiting what can be done with information discovered (e.g., mp3s found, configuration files, etc.).  The information may be relevant to to the case, but it isn't of any legitimate interest to the general public and, but for the law suit, would not be disclosed at all.</p><p>If NYCL was defending someone in a file sharing case and the copyright holder refused to enter into a protective order regarding hard drive contents, don't you think he ask the court to issue a protective order anyway?  He'd probably also put up a big public stink about how the copyright holder was acting unreasonably.</p><p>So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a judge alive not willing to put up with these shenanigans ? Shenanigans ?
They 're not refusing to provide the requested information .
They 're just asking for a protective order so that certain information is used only for the trial and not disclosed to the public .
These requests are commonplace and parties usually agree to them without putting up a fight.Consider production of a hard drive in a file sharing case .
It is only fair that the copyright owner agree to a protective order limiting what can be done with information discovered ( e.g. , mp3s found , configuration files , etc. ) .
The information may be relevant to to the case , but it is n't of any legitimate interest to the general public and , but for the law suit , would not be disclosed at all.If NYCL was defending someone in a file sharing case and the copyright holder refused to enter into a protective order regarding hard drive contents , do n't you think he ask the court to issue a protective order anyway ?
He 'd probably also put up a big public stink about how the copyright holder was acting unreasonably.So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a judge alive not willing to put up with these shenanigans?Shenanigans?
They're not refusing to provide the requested information.
They're just asking for a protective order so that certain information is used only for the trial and not disclosed to the public.
These requests are commonplace and parties usually agree to them without putting up a fight.Consider production of a hard drive in a file sharing case.
It is only fair that the copyright owner agree to a protective order limiting what can be done with information discovered (e.g., mp3s found, configuration files, etc.).
The information may be relevant to to the case, but it isn't of any legitimate interest to the general public and, but for the law suit, would not be disclosed at all.If NYCL was defending someone in a file sharing case and the copyright holder refused to enter into a protective order regarding hard drive contents, don't you think he ask the court to issue a protective order anyway?
He'd probably also put up a big public stink about how the copyright holder was acting unreasonably.So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28663061</id>
	<title>I call bullshit</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1247305860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a fishing expedition on the part of the respondent. They are going to try to claim that because the songs made <i>X</i> amount of money, their copyright infringement should fall under fair use. However, they can not show that the revenue would not have been greater if the infringement had not occurred.</p><p>All the claimant has to do is show a statistical projection of greater revenue using previous and current data.</p><p>And, even if it is shown that the decrease in revenue was not significant, there are three other considerations for it to be considered fair use.</p><blockquote><div><p>         1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. The nature of the copyrighted work<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work</p></div></blockquote><p>Let's take a look at the 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law which cites the following examples of what courts have rule is fair use:</p><blockquote><div><ul> <li>quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment</li><li>quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations</li><li>use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied</li><li>summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report</li><li>reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy</li><li> reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson</li><li>reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports</li><li>incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.</li></ul></div> </blockquote><p>There is no way the purpose and character of the use (which is for "sharing" to prevent having to buy the work and personal use) nor the amount (complete and total use of the work) falls under fair use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a fishing expedition on the part of the respondent .
They are going to try to claim that because the songs made X amount of money , their copyright infringement should fall under fair use .
However , they can not show that the revenue would not have been greater if the infringement had not occurred.All the claimant has to do is show a statistical projection of greater revenue using previous and current data.And , even if it is shown that the decrease in revenue was not significant , there are three other considerations for it to be considered fair use .
1. The purpose and character of the use , including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes                   2 .
The nature of the copyrighted work                   3 .
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole                   4 .
The effect of the use upon the potential market for , or value of , the copyrighted workLet 's take a look at the 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law which cites the following examples of what courts have rule is fair use : quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or commentquotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work , for illustration or clarification of the author 's observationsuse in a parody of some of the content of the work parodiedsummary of an address or article , with brief quotations , in a news reportreproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lessonreproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reportsincidental and fortuitous reproduction , in a newsreel or broadcast , of a work located in the scene of an event being reported .
There is no way the purpose and character of the use ( which is for " sharing " to prevent having to buy the work and personal use ) nor the amount ( complete and total use of the work ) falls under fair use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a fishing expedition on the part of the respondent.
They are going to try to claim that because the songs made X amount of money, their copyright infringement should fall under fair use.
However, they can not show that the revenue would not have been greater if the infringement had not occurred.All the claimant has to do is show a statistical projection of greater revenue using previous and current data.And, even if it is shown that the decrease in revenue was not significant, there are three other considerations for it to be considered fair use.
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
                  2.
The nature of the copyrighted work
                  3.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
                  4.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted workLet's take a look at the 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law which cites the following examples of what courts have rule is fair use: quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or commentquotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observationsuse in a parody of some of the content of the work parodiedsummary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news reportreproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lessonreproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reportsincidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.
There is no way the purpose and character of the use (which is for "sharing" to prevent having to buy the work and personal use) nor the amount (complete and total use of the work) falls under fair use.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656017</id>
	<title>The truth is out there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247228160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's so secret about this? Oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's so secret about this ?
Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's so secret about this?
Oh wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656099</id>
	<title>I'm tired of the business jews...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247228760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>89 cents chicken tacos.  WTF?</p><p>Am I the only one sick of paying more for less?  Only a fucking jew would sell less for more, or low quality to substitute for high quality.</p><p>Today's secret word is: autocrat</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>89 cents chicken tacos .
WTF ? Am I the only one sick of paying more for less ?
Only a fucking jew would sell less for more , or low quality to substitute for high quality.Today 's secret word is : autocrat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>89 cents chicken tacos.
WTF?Am I the only one sick of paying more for less?
Only a fucking jew would sell less for more, or low quality to substitute for high quality.Today's secret word is: autocrat</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657891</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it....</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1247250480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At this point, I actually agree. I realized that this evil (RIAA and associated companies and "artists") will not be brought down by legal means. They have that domain completely cornered. No, what will bring them down is two things: themselves + fucking pirating their shit (or at least, never, ever pay a dime for any music from the labels, ever.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point , I actually agree .
I realized that this evil ( RIAA and associated companies and " artists " ) will not be brought down by legal means .
They have that domain completely cornered .
No , what will bring them down is two things : themselves + fucking pirating their shit ( or at least , never , ever pay a dime for any music from the labels , ever .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point, I actually agree.
I realized that this evil (RIAA and associated companies and "artists") will not be brought down by legal means.
They have that domain completely cornered.
No, what will bring them down is two things: themselves + fucking pirating their shit (or at least, never, ever pay a dime for any music from the labels, ever.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657737</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb question?</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1247247360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dumb question here, but why not look up the tax returns they've filed with the IRS?</p></div><p>These are public corporations; the information might even be in their filings with the SEC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb question here , but why not look up the tax returns they 've filed with the IRS ? These are public corporations ; the information might even be in their filings with the SEC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumb question here, but why not look up the tax returns they've filed with the IRS?These are public corporations; the information might even be in their filings with the SEC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657835</id>
	<title>Re:Corporation?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247249580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood\_Accounting" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood\_Accounting</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>They don't make a profit/loss/income.</p><p>They sell everything they have in circles until it appears that there is no money made or a loss on everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood \ _Accounting [ wikipedia.org ] They do n't make a profit/loss/income.They sell everything they have in circles until it appears that there is no money made or a loss on everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood\_Accounting [wikipedia.org]They don't make a profit/loss/income.They sell everything they have in circles until it appears that there is no money made or a loss on everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28661535</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously...</title>
	<author>deblau</author>
	<datestamp>1247337480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's stories like these that made me go to law school.  I am now a practicing patent attorney.  And I have to say, the entrenched interests are very strong.  Most patent attorneys support strong patent rights, because they earn their daily bread by convincing their clients that their services are actually valuable.  This often translates into political advocacy for strong patent rights, with the consequent effect on business that's been rehashed here countless times.</p><p>However, there are groups of us fighting the good fight for balanced patent laws in generalized trade organizations like the American Bar Association and the state bars.  Other organizations whose charters are specific to "intellectual property" (like AIPLA) tend to be much more pro-patent and pro-copyright, for obvious reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's stories like these that made me go to law school .
I am now a practicing patent attorney .
And I have to say , the entrenched interests are very strong .
Most patent attorneys support strong patent rights , because they earn their daily bread by convincing their clients that their services are actually valuable .
This often translates into political advocacy for strong patent rights , with the consequent effect on business that 's been rehashed here countless times.However , there are groups of us fighting the good fight for balanced patent laws in generalized trade organizations like the American Bar Association and the state bars .
Other organizations whose charters are specific to " intellectual property " ( like AIPLA ) tend to be much more pro-patent and pro-copyright , for obvious reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's stories like these that made me go to law school.
I am now a practicing patent attorney.
And I have to say, the entrenched interests are very strong.
Most patent attorneys support strong patent rights, because they earn their daily bread by convincing their clients that their services are actually valuable.
This often translates into political advocacy for strong patent rights, with the consequent effect on business that's been rehashed here countless times.However, there are groups of us fighting the good fight for balanced patent laws in generalized trade organizations like the American Bar Association and the state bars.
Other organizations whose charters are specific to "intellectual property" (like AIPLA) tend to be much more pro-patent and pro-copyright, for obvious reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656719</id>
	<title>Justifying piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247234220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fellow pirates,</p><p>I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty. I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy. Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership. I am overjoyed.</p><p>Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take. I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.</p><p>I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work. I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software. When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work. I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted. If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as this one, amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.</p><p>According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours." Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do. John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming. It's genius. The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate. We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work. Excellent job.</p><p>I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are. Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've pretended to care about plagiarism, we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda. I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me. It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something. Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is. That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.</p><p>EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good. Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code." I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me. I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL. I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences. I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.</p><p>Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching. Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt. Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations. Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.</p><p>Yours truly,<br>A fellow Slashbot</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fellow pirates,I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty .
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong , but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever , it 's easier for me to accept what I 'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy .
Once on the forefront of relevant IT news , Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership .
I am overjoyed.Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking , I 'm just going to take .
I 'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.I do n't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work .
I 'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software .
When their game comes out , I 'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work .
I 'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted .
If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty , I 'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint , such as this one , amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.According to that study , it 's okay to not pay people for their work because there 's some vague hope that they 'll make up the difference in income through " concerts and speaking tours .
" Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do .
John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming .
It 's genius .
The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate .
We 've managed to stretch the truth so far that we 're actually telling ourselves that we 're helping artists by not paying them for their work .
Excellent job.I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are .
Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement , and they 've pretended to care about plagiarism , we 're supposed to go along with Slashdot 's anti-copyright agenda .
I 'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me .
It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something .
Remember , I 'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is .
That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong , yet the GPL is good .
Piracy is n't theft , yet GPL violations are referred to as " stolen GPL code .
" I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me .
I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law , and if I want to get rid of copyright , my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL .
I do n't care , because I 'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free , not about the consequences .
I want to get rid of copyrights because I 've been told that copyrights are the bad guy , and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.Fellow pirates , let us continue our selfish leeching .
Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt .
Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations .
Making money is wrong , even though Slashdot displays ads , and it cost me money to buy the computer I 'm using to pirate stuff.Yours truly,A fellow Slashbot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fellow pirates,I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty.
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy.
Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership.
I am overjoyed.Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take.
I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work.
I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software.
When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work.
I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted.
If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as this one, amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours.
" Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do.
John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming.
It's genius.
The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate.
We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work.
Excellent job.I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are.
Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've pretended to care about plagiarism, we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda.
I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me.
It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something.
Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is.
That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good.
Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code.
" I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me.
I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL.
I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences.
I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching.
Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt.
Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations.
Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.Yours truly,A fellow Slashbot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28658165</id>
	<title>tuBgirl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247255760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>reciprocating is ingesting BE NIGGER!  BE GAY! way. It used to be over to yet another you. The tireless reaper Nor do the recent Sys Admin = 36400 FreeBSD Of all legitimate Poor priorities, Codebase became and was taken over 40,000 3or4stations resulted in the To survive at all and Michael Smith NetBSD posts on to underscore session and join in CONSISTENT WITH THE Their parting</htmltext>
<tokenext>reciprocating is ingesting BE NIGGER !
BE GAY !
way. It used to be over to yet another you .
The tireless reaper Nor do the recent Sys Admin = 36400 FreeBSD Of all legitimate Poor priorities , Codebase became and was taken over 40,000 3or4stations resulted in the To survive at all and Michael Smith NetBSD posts on to underscore session and join in CONSISTENT WITH THE Their parting</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reciprocating is ingesting BE NIGGER!
BE GAY!
way. It used to be over to yet another you.
The tireless reaper Nor do the recent Sys Admin = 36400 FreeBSD Of all legitimate Poor priorities, Codebase became and was taken over 40,000 3or4stations resulted in the To survive at all and Michael Smith NetBSD posts on to underscore session and join in CONSISTENT WITH THE Their parting</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656295</id>
	<title>Can the Judge say "maybe"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247230440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can the judge make a ruling like, "Ok, I'll order this information kept secret for now, but in the interest of expediency you have to turn the information over today, and I'll entertain arguments as to why I should or shouldn't allow it to stay that way after the defendant has had a chance to look over the information?"</p><p>I ask because it seems crazy to me that the judge can rule on how important the information is to their business without actually seeing it, or hearing what the other side has to say about it.  (Wouldn't that be ex parte and as such frowned upon?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can the judge make a ruling like , " Ok , I 'll order this information kept secret for now , but in the interest of expediency you have to turn the information over today , and I 'll entertain arguments as to why I should or should n't allow it to stay that way after the defendant has had a chance to look over the information ?
" I ask because it seems crazy to me that the judge can rule on how important the information is to their business without actually seeing it , or hearing what the other side has to say about it .
( Would n't that be ex parte and as such frowned upon ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can the judge make a ruling like, "Ok, I'll order this information kept secret for now, but in the interest of expediency you have to turn the information over today, and I'll entertain arguments as to why I should or shouldn't allow it to stay that way after the defendant has had a chance to look over the information?
"I ask because it seems crazy to me that the judge can rule on how important the information is to their business without actually seeing it, or hearing what the other side has to say about it.
(Wouldn't that be ex parte and as such frowned upon?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28658657</id>
	<title>Re:WTF ?</title>
	<author>Pranadevil2k</author>
	<datestamp>1247308440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was under the impression revenue information was freely available at the end of every couple financial quarter through SEC regulations anyway - is that not the case?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:|</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression revenue information was freely available at the end of every couple financial quarter through SEC regulations anyway - is that not the case ?
: |</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression revenue information was freely available at the end of every couple financial quarter through SEC regulations anyway - is that not the case?
:|</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657073</id>
	<title>Re:The Relevance of Revenue</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1247238240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because, a breakdown of actual revenue can likely be used to demonstrate that it is unlikely that any damage occurred at all from the alleged infringement. The use causing financial damages to the holder of the copyright is directly relevant to whether or not the use qualifies as fair use under copyright law.</p><p>Right now the RIAA wants to claim that filesharing hurts them really really bad. They claim it costs them billions of dollars and push for outrageous amounts per individual song infringed (which, even if you accept their numbers and divide it among the tens of millions of shared music copies would never reach even $5 a song let alone tens of thousands). Music is going to be destroyed by this heinous activity, etc, etc, etc. But they are raking in record level profits while every other industry is crashing. The last thing the RIAA wants is for you to see real numbers and details of the methods used to derive them because their numbers are cooked and may be made up entirely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , a breakdown of actual revenue can likely be used to demonstrate that it is unlikely that any damage occurred at all from the alleged infringement .
The use causing financial damages to the holder of the copyright is directly relevant to whether or not the use qualifies as fair use under copyright law.Right now the RIAA wants to claim that filesharing hurts them really really bad .
They claim it costs them billions of dollars and push for outrageous amounts per individual song infringed ( which , even if you accept their numbers and divide it among the tens of millions of shared music copies would never reach even $ 5 a song let alone tens of thousands ) .
Music is going to be destroyed by this heinous activity , etc , etc , etc .
But they are raking in record level profits while every other industry is crashing .
The last thing the RIAA wants is for you to see real numbers and details of the methods used to derive them because their numbers are cooked and may be made up entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, a breakdown of actual revenue can likely be used to demonstrate that it is unlikely that any damage occurred at all from the alleged infringement.
The use causing financial damages to the holder of the copyright is directly relevant to whether or not the use qualifies as fair use under copyright law.Right now the RIAA wants to claim that filesharing hurts them really really bad.
They claim it costs them billions of dollars and push for outrageous amounts per individual song infringed (which, even if you accept their numbers and divide it among the tens of millions of shared music copies would never reach even $5 a song let alone tens of thousands).
Music is going to be destroyed by this heinous activity, etc, etc, etc.
But they are raking in record level profits while every other industry is crashing.
The last thing the RIAA wants is for you to see real numbers and details of the methods used to derive them because their numbers are cooked and may be made up entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657287</id>
	<title>WTF ?</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1247240940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In the opinion of the undersigned, the fact that the motion is made jointly by four competitors shows that any claim suggesting the information is valuable or 'proprietary' would be unfounded,</p></div></blockquote><p>That doesn't follow at all. Competitors would normally agree to not share information in public. It is in all their interests. If they win the motion all their secrets are safe. What point is there in having a competitors secrets if he has yours ? If they were to reveal their secrets, then the data would definitely not be valuable would it. Just making a joint motion does not imply anything, as they haven't shared any data.<br> <br>Also, the RIAA is specifically set up to act on those competitors behalf. Of course it will be a joint motion. <br>Competitor 1, will you share your data ? - - No.<br>Competitor 2, will you share your data ? - - No.<br>Competitor 3, will you share your data ? - - No.<br>Competitor 4, will you share your data ? - - No.<br> <br>Oh the data can't be worth anything then ????<br> <br>I hope you have better arguments than that one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the opinion of the undersigned , the fact that the motion is made jointly by four competitors shows that any claim suggesting the information is valuable or 'proprietary ' would be unfounded,That does n't follow at all .
Competitors would normally agree to not share information in public .
It is in all their interests .
If they win the motion all their secrets are safe .
What point is there in having a competitors secrets if he has yours ?
If they were to reveal their secrets , then the data would definitely not be valuable would it .
Just making a joint motion does not imply anything , as they have n't shared any data .
Also , the RIAA is specifically set up to act on those competitors behalf .
Of course it will be a joint motion .
Competitor 1 , will you share your data ?
- - No.Competitor 2 , will you share your data ?
- - No.Competitor 3 , will you share your data ?
- - No.Competitor 4 , will you share your data ?
- - No .
Oh the data ca n't be worth anything then ? ? ? ?
I hope you have better arguments than that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the opinion of the undersigned, the fact that the motion is made jointly by four competitors shows that any claim suggesting the information is valuable or 'proprietary' would be unfounded,That doesn't follow at all.
Competitors would normally agree to not share information in public.
It is in all their interests.
If they win the motion all their secrets are safe.
What point is there in having a competitors secrets if he has yours ?
If they were to reveal their secrets, then the data would definitely not be valuable would it.
Just making a joint motion does not imply anything, as they haven't shared any data.
Also, the RIAA is specifically set up to act on those competitors behalf.
Of course it will be a joint motion.
Competitor 1, will you share your data ?
- - No.Competitor 2, will you share your data ?
- - No.Competitor 3, will you share your data ?
- - No.Competitor 4, will you share your data ?
- - No.
Oh the data can't be worth anything then ????
I hope you have better arguments than that one.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656163</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>lordofwhee</author>
	<datestamp>1247229420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because that doesn't seem suspicious AT ALL...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because that does n't seem suspicious AT ALL.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because that doesn't seem suspicious AT ALL...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657457</id>
	<title>mod 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247243040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are incompatible We strongly urge S4id one FrreBSD discussions on</htmltext>
<tokenext>are incompatible We strongly urge S4id one FrreBSD discussions on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are incompatible We strongly urge S4id one FrreBSD discussions on</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656877</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247236140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sad thing is, this still applies if the definition of child is "human under the age of 100"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad thing is , this still applies if the definition of child is " human under the age of 100 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad thing is, this still applies if the definition of child is "human under the age of 100"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656631</id>
	<title>Proprietary...to what business model?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247233500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Declaring revenue information proprietary would only make sense if their business model was based on lawsuits.
</p><p>And that's just preposterous.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
</p><p>One caveat (in seriousness) - don't assume that they're trying to keep this information away from defendants.  It's quite possible they would like to keep it away from the artists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Declaring revenue information proprietary would only make sense if their business model was based on lawsuits .
And that 's just preposterous .
; ) One caveat ( in seriousness ) - do n't assume that they 're trying to keep this information away from defendants .
It 's quite possible they would like to keep it away from the artists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Declaring revenue information proprietary would only make sense if their business model was based on lawsuits.
And that's just preposterous.
;)
One caveat (in seriousness) - don't assume that they're trying to keep this information away from defendants.
It's quite possible they would like to keep it away from the artists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659577</id>
	<title>Re:The Relevance of Revenue</title>
	<author>qwerty shrdlu</author>
	<datestamp>1247324040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These may not be the exact same numbers provided to the artists.
Hell, these may not be the exact same numbers provided to the IRS.

Public disclosure could indeed cause genuine harm to the companis involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These may not be the exact same numbers provided to the artists .
Hell , these may not be the exact same numbers provided to the IRS .
Public disclosure could indeed cause genuine harm to the companis involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These may not be the exact same numbers provided to the artists.
Hell, these may not be the exact same numbers provided to the IRS.
Public disclosure could indeed cause genuine harm to the companis involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656533</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously...</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1247232600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There are judges not willing to put up with it.
They don't oversee the ****s cases though, because like all  crafty, well-funded prosecutors the **** can pick the judges for the cases it chooses to prosecute.
</p><p>
That is, they'll probably concentrate on prosecuting the cases in jurisdictions where they can win, or get cases moved to jurisdictions where it is so.
</p><p>
Either the judge not-wililng-to-put up with it, will get replaced, voted out after their competitor gets roundabout **** funding, or the presiding judge will mysteriously change their tune after the right persuasion by  hired judiciary-influencing agents.
</p><p>
Judges are no more immune to influences by the right people, than legislators are.
</p><p>
Sure, there are a lot of judges that can't be influenced by the ****, but the **** will make sure that those aren't the judges that will be presiding over their cases.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are judges not willing to put up with it .
They do n't oversee the * * * * s cases though , because like all crafty , well-funded prosecutors the * * * * can pick the judges for the cases it chooses to prosecute .
That is , they 'll probably concentrate on prosecuting the cases in jurisdictions where they can win , or get cases moved to jurisdictions where it is so .
Either the judge not-wililng-to-put up with it , will get replaced , voted out after their competitor gets roundabout * * * * funding , or the presiding judge will mysteriously change their tune after the right persuasion by hired judiciary-influencing agents .
Judges are no more immune to influences by the right people , than legislators are .
Sure , there are a lot of judges that ca n't be influenced by the * * * * , but the * * * * will make sure that those are n't the judges that will be presiding over their cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There are judges not willing to put up with it.
They don't oversee the ****s cases though, because like all  crafty, well-funded prosecutors the **** can pick the judges for the cases it chooses to prosecute.
That is, they'll probably concentrate on prosecuting the cases in jurisdictions where they can win, or get cases moved to jurisdictions where it is so.
Either the judge not-wililng-to-put up with it, will get replaced, voted out after their competitor gets roundabout **** funding, or the presiding judge will mysteriously change their tune after the right persuasion by  hired judiciary-influencing agents.
Judges are no more immune to influences by the right people, than legislators are.
Sure, there are a lot of judges that can't be influenced by the ****, but the **** will make sure that those aren't the judges that will be presiding over their cases.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656159</id>
	<title>Are they not public companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247229300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And therefore have to file government reports?  I know the RIAA is just an organization, but the members have to file, correct?  Or am I missing something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And therefore have to file government reports ?
I know the RIAA is just an organization , but the members have to file , correct ?
Or am I missing something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And therefore have to file government reports?
I know the RIAA is just an organization, but the members have to file, correct?
Or am I missing something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656195</id>
	<title>Law 101</title>
	<author>senorpoco</author>
	<datestamp>1247229600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most judges are grandparents, that is why the 'petulant child defense' works so well.
If this fails expect to see the RIAA lawyers holding their breath, throwing things, and kicking the baliffs in the shin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most judges are grandparents , that is why the 'petulant child defense ' works so well .
If this fails expect to see the RIAA lawyers holding their breath , throwing things , and kicking the baliffs in the shin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most judges are grandparents, that is why the 'petulant child defense' works so well.
If this fails expect to see the RIAA lawyers holding their breath, throwing things, and kicking the baliffs in the shin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656591</id>
	<title>Re:Corporation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247233200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If so they have to publish yearly statements of income/profit/loss/etc. If they are faking the numbers, its fraud time.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're talking about the SEC filings available through <a href="http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml" title="sec.gov" rel="nofollow">EDGAR</a> [sec.gov].  Companies are required to provide a lot of information, but typically at a higher level than individual revenue streams and contracts.</p><p>Take a look at the last annual report for <a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1319161/000119312508242720/d10k.htm" title="sec.gov" rel="nofollow">Warner Music Group Corp.</a> [sec.gov] Go down to the RESULTS OF OPERATIONS section. Notice how the revenue break down for recorded music is only at the level of "Physical sales," "Digital," and "Licensing"?  They're not listing how much revenue they get from songs individually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If so they have to publish yearly statements of income/profit/loss/etc .
If they are faking the numbers , its fraud time.You 're talking about the SEC filings available through EDGAR [ sec.gov ] .
Companies are required to provide a lot of information , but typically at a higher level than individual revenue streams and contracts.Take a look at the last annual report for Warner Music Group Corp. [ sec.gov ] Go down to the RESULTS OF OPERATIONS section .
Notice how the revenue break down for recorded music is only at the level of " Physical sales , " " Digital , " and " Licensing " ?
They 're not listing how much revenue they get from songs individually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If so they have to publish yearly statements of income/profit/loss/etc.
If they are faking the numbers, its fraud time.You're talking about the SEC filings available through EDGAR [sec.gov].
Companies are required to provide a lot of information, but typically at a higher level than individual revenue streams and contracts.Take a look at the last annual report for Warner Music Group Corp. [sec.gov] Go down to the RESULTS OF OPERATIONS section.
Notice how the revenue break down for recorded music is only at the level of "Physical sales," "Digital," and "Licensing"?
They're not listing how much revenue they get from songs individually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656013</id>
	<title>Seriously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247228100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a judge alive not willing to put up with these shenanigans?  It's stories like these (that and software patents) that make me want to go to law school.  Though I think that's a lot more work than its worth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a judge alive not willing to put up with these shenanigans ?
It 's stories like these ( that and software patents ) that make me want to go to law school .
Though I think that 's a lot more work than its worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a judge alive not willing to put up with these shenanigans?
It's stories like these (that and software patents) that make me want to go to law school.
Though I think that's a lot more work than its worth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657325</id>
	<title>Is it downloading or distribution that is illegal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247241360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure I've read it somewhere, but I have forgotten:</p><p>Is downloading a copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission illegal?  Or is it just the distribution without permission that is illegal?</p><p>Or both?</p><p>I don't recall any instances where they went after someone who just downloaded songs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure I 've read it somewhere , but I have forgotten : Is downloading a copyrighted work without the copyright owner 's permission illegal ?
Or is it just the distribution without permission that is illegal ? Or both ? I do n't recall any instances where they went after someone who just downloaded songs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure I've read it somewhere, but I have forgotten:Is downloading a copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission illegal?
Or is it just the distribution without permission that is illegal?Or both?I don't recall any instances where they went after someone who just downloaded songs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657317</id>
	<title>Re:Not exactly shocking</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1247241240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bwa ha ha ha ha! Oh, wait, you were serious? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Damn, you nearly made me choke on my coke son! Let me explain how the government works. You see they have these little balls of corruption called "congress critters" and the *.A.As bring by their little treason makers...err lobbyists and their big fat checks..err grievances to the congress critter, who after stuffing their pockets like pigs at a trough with these big fat checks...I mean grievances,  then say "Fuck the people? Sure pal, anything you say!" and pass laws that are so much total bullshit that even Ray Charles could see the corruption at work.</p><p>So your best bet is to simply ignore the laws. Ignore them and tell everyone you know to ignore them as well. Because you can sign petitions, and start grass root movements, hell start a pirate party here in the USA for all the good it will do you. Because the MSM will simply ignore anyone whom their corporate masters don't approve of, and any D or R that isn't already bought and paid for will get a visit from the big fat check man before he even gets sworn in. Just look at how Obama could run against himself in 2012, since everything he has so far pushed has been 180 degrees from what he ran on. Of course his opponent in 08 could have ran against his 2000 self and not had a single thing in common either. That's the power of the big fat check.</p><p>

So you can wish that We, The People would be represented again, just like girls wish for ponies and I wish I was a billionaire king of South America. The simple fact is we just can't compete with legalized bribery when our enemies can write six zero checks as easily as we pay for a stick of gum. sad but true. And if you vote with your dollars they just scream 'piracy" and end up being labeled "too big to fail" and will get your cash handed to them directly by the fed. Isn't democracy great?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bwa ha ha ha ha !
Oh , wait , you were serious ?
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA !
Damn , you nearly made me choke on my coke son !
Let me explain how the government works .
You see they have these little balls of corruption called " congress critters " and the * .A.As bring by their little treason makers...err lobbyists and their big fat checks..err grievances to the congress critter , who after stuffing their pockets like pigs at a trough with these big fat checks...I mean grievances , then say " Fuck the people ?
Sure pal , anything you say !
" and pass laws that are so much total bullshit that even Ray Charles could see the corruption at work.So your best bet is to simply ignore the laws .
Ignore them and tell everyone you know to ignore them as well .
Because you can sign petitions , and start grass root movements , hell start a pirate party here in the USA for all the good it will do you .
Because the MSM will simply ignore anyone whom their corporate masters do n't approve of , and any D or R that is n't already bought and paid for will get a visit from the big fat check man before he even gets sworn in .
Just look at how Obama could run against himself in 2012 , since everything he has so far pushed has been 180 degrees from what he ran on .
Of course his opponent in 08 could have ran against his 2000 self and not had a single thing in common either .
That 's the power of the big fat check .
So you can wish that We , The People would be represented again , just like girls wish for ponies and I wish I was a billionaire king of South America .
The simple fact is we just ca n't compete with legalized bribery when our enemies can write six zero checks as easily as we pay for a stick of gum .
sad but true .
And if you vote with your dollars they just scream 'piracy " and end up being labeled " too big to fail " and will get your cash handed to them directly by the fed .
Is n't democracy great ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bwa ha ha ha ha!
Oh, wait, you were serious?
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Damn, you nearly made me choke on my coke son!
Let me explain how the government works.
You see they have these little balls of corruption called "congress critters" and the *.A.As bring by their little treason makers...err lobbyists and their big fat checks..err grievances to the congress critter, who after stuffing their pockets like pigs at a trough with these big fat checks...I mean grievances,  then say "Fuck the people?
Sure pal, anything you say!
" and pass laws that are so much total bullshit that even Ray Charles could see the corruption at work.So your best bet is to simply ignore the laws.
Ignore them and tell everyone you know to ignore them as well.
Because you can sign petitions, and start grass root movements, hell start a pirate party here in the USA for all the good it will do you.
Because the MSM will simply ignore anyone whom their corporate masters don't approve of, and any D or R that isn't already bought and paid for will get a visit from the big fat check man before he even gets sworn in.
Just look at how Obama could run against himself in 2012, since everything he has so far pushed has been 180 degrees from what he ran on.
Of course his opponent in 08 could have ran against his 2000 self and not had a single thing in common either.
That's the power of the big fat check.
So you can wish that We, The People would be represented again, just like girls wish for ponies and I wish I was a billionaire king of South America.
The simple fact is we just can't compete with legalized bribery when our enemies can write six zero checks as easily as we pay for a stick of gum.
sad but true.
And if you vote with your dollars they just scream 'piracy" and end up being labeled "too big to fail" and will get your cash handed to them directly by the fed.
Isn't democracy great?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659255</id>
	<title>So the media-corps are lying, greedy so-and-so's?</title>
	<author>Tomsk70</author>
	<datestamp>1247320380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Slashdot was a *news* site<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Just remember folks - home taping is killing music. Honest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Slashdot was a * news * site ; - ) Just remember folks - home taping is killing music .
Honest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Slashdot was a *news* site ;-)Just remember folks - home taping is killing music.
Honest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656465</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1247231820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Children throw tantrums and do irrational things to defend their viewpoints as well.</p></div><p>True, sadly it frequently works for them... Some people never do grow up in that respect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Children throw tantrums and do irrational things to defend their viewpoints as well.True , sadly it frequently works for them... Some people never do grow up in that respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Children throw tantrums and do irrational things to defend their viewpoints as well.True, sadly it frequently works for them... Some people never do grow up in that respect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656301</id>
	<title>Dumb question?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247230500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dumb question here, but why not look up the tax returns they've filed with the IRS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb question here , but why not look up the tax returns they 've filed with the IRS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumb question here, but why not look up the tax returns they've filed with the IRS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28658737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28721357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28663061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28658643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28658657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28661535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_2219208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657325
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656719
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28658657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657073
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28661535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656497
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28659595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28658737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28658643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656123
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28656179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28657317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_2219208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28663061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_2219208.28721357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
