<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_12_0111247</id>
	<title>French "3 Strikes" Law Returns, In Slightly Altered Form</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247409420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica:  <i>"The French Senate has once again approved <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/its-baack-french-3-strikes-law-gets-another-go-from-senate.ars">a reworked version of the country's controversial 'three strikes' bill</a> designed to appease the Constitutional Council. Instead of a state-appointed agency cutting off those accused of being repeat offenders, judges will have the final say over punishment. The approval comes exactly one month after the country's Constitutional Council ripped apart the previous version of the Cr&#233;ation et Internet law. ... Not content to let the idea die, President Nicolas Sarkozy's administration reworked the law in hopes of making it amenable to the Council &mdash; instead of HADOPI deciding on its own to cut off users on the third strike, it will now report offenders to the courts. A judge can then choose to ban the user from the Internet, fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP), or hand over a two-year prison sentence."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica : " The French Senate has once again approved a reworked version of the country 's controversial 'three strikes ' bill designed to appease the Constitutional Council .
Instead of a state-appointed agency cutting off those accused of being repeat offenders , judges will have the final say over punishment .
The approval comes exactly one month after the country 's Constitutional Council ripped apart the previous version of the Cr   ation et Internet law .
... Not content to let the idea die , President Nicolas Sarkozy 's administration reworked the law in hopes of making it amenable to the Council    instead of HADOPI deciding on its own to cut off users on the third strike , it will now report offenders to the courts .
A judge can then choose to ban the user from the Internet , fine him or her 300,000 ( according to the AFP ) , or hand over a two-year prison sentence .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica:  "The French Senate has once again approved a reworked version of the country's controversial 'three strikes' bill designed to appease the Constitutional Council.
Instead of a state-appointed agency cutting off those accused of being repeat offenders, judges will have the final say over punishment.
The approval comes exactly one month after the country's Constitutional Council ripped apart the previous version of the Création et Internet law.
... Not content to let the idea die, President Nicolas Sarkozy's administration reworked the law in hopes of making it amenable to the Council — instead of HADOPI deciding on its own to cut off users on the third strike, it will now report offenders to the courts.
A judge can then choose to ban the user from the Internet, fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP), or hand over a two-year prison sentence.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666961</id>
	<title>Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247409180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple. Because you do not put them there. (If "you" is someone under the government of that politician.)</p><p>Yes. That's your job. Because justice is not only blind, but also working for that politician.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple .
Because you do not put them there .
( If " you " is someone under the government of that politician. ) Yes .
That 's your job .
Because justice is not only blind , but also working for that politician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple.
Because you do not put them there.
(If "you" is someone under the government of that politician.)Yes.
That's your job.
Because justice is not only blind, but also working for that politician.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664973</id>
	<title>Why is there no link in the fine summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/its-baack-french-3-strikes-law-gets-another-go-from-senate.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/its-baack-french-3-strikes-law-gets-another-go-from-senate.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here : http : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/its-baack-french-3-strikes-law-gets-another-go-from-senate.ars [ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/its-baack-french-3-strikes-law-gets-another-go-from-senate.ars [arstechnica.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665321</id>
	<title>Re:A war of attrition...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why all political decisions should be confined to a small enough region that any citizen in the area is close enough to conveniently go and flatten the responsible politicians nose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why all political decisions should be confined to a small enough region that any citizen in the area is close enough to conveniently go and flatten the responsible politicians nose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why all political decisions should be confined to a small enough region that any citizen in the area is close enough to conveniently go and flatten the responsible politicians nose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667905</id>
	<title>Not *slightly* altered</title>
	<author>HuguesT</author>
	<datestamp>1247419260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, the summary is bad.</p><p>The new proposed law is *not* slightly altered. Several main points make is somewhat more acceptable :</p><p>1- the internet subscriber is presumed innocent as per the French constitution. The word of the "HADOPI" authority carry no judicial weight other than a denunciation. The courts will have to do their own fact finding, and they are not likely to be satisfied by a mere IP number matching that of the subscriber.<br>2- The internet subscriber can defend him/herself before any punishment is meted out. In the previous version, the internet connexion was summarily cut, and only then could the subscriber complain and argue his/her innocence.</p><p>Most importantly, the decision is now up to a judge. One has to remember that judges are not at all friends of the current French government. Their budget have been cut, their power have been diminished, they are already overworked. It is not likely that judges will favour the Sarkozy approach, which is to punish early, punish often.</p><p>My personal opinion is that this is a face-saving law. The new law is 99.9\% inapplicable in practice. There is just no way thousands of people can go through the court system every month as is the government's plan. Plus people are *very* likely to put up a good fight, like they have done everywhere. There are no possible settlement.</p><p>Soon the entertainment industry will realise that they have been wasting their time all along, and that they will eventually have to offer what everybody wants, which is a cheap, effective, legal system, be it unecumbered VOD, global licence, whatever . Otherwise they will die, simple as that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , the summary is bad.The new proposed law is * not * slightly altered .
Several main points make is somewhat more acceptable : 1- the internet subscriber is presumed innocent as per the French constitution .
The word of the " HADOPI " authority carry no judicial weight other than a denunciation .
The courts will have to do their own fact finding , and they are not likely to be satisfied by a mere IP number matching that of the subscriber.2- The internet subscriber can defend him/herself before any punishment is meted out .
In the previous version , the internet connexion was summarily cut , and only then could the subscriber complain and argue his/her innocence.Most importantly , the decision is now up to a judge .
One has to remember that judges are not at all friends of the current French government .
Their budget have been cut , their power have been diminished , they are already overworked .
It is not likely that judges will favour the Sarkozy approach , which is to punish early , punish often.My personal opinion is that this is a face-saving law .
The new law is 99.9 \ % inapplicable in practice .
There is just no way thousands of people can go through the court system every month as is the government 's plan .
Plus people are * very * likely to put up a good fight , like they have done everywhere .
There are no possible settlement.Soon the entertainment industry will realise that they have been wasting their time all along , and that they will eventually have to offer what everybody wants , which is a cheap , effective , legal system , be it unecumbered VOD , global licence , whatever .
Otherwise they will die , simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, the summary is bad.The new proposed law is *not* slightly altered.
Several main points make is somewhat more acceptable :1- the internet subscriber is presumed innocent as per the French constitution.
The word of the "HADOPI" authority carry no judicial weight other than a denunciation.
The courts will have to do their own fact finding, and they are not likely to be satisfied by a mere IP number matching that of the subscriber.2- The internet subscriber can defend him/herself before any punishment is meted out.
In the previous version, the internet connexion was summarily cut, and only then could the subscriber complain and argue his/her innocence.Most importantly, the decision is now up to a judge.
One has to remember that judges are not at all friends of the current French government.
Their budget have been cut, their power have been diminished, they are already overworked.
It is not likely that judges will favour the Sarkozy approach, which is to punish early, punish often.My personal opinion is that this is a face-saving law.
The new law is 99.9\% inapplicable in practice.
There is just no way thousands of people can go through the court system every month as is the government's plan.
Plus people are *very* likely to put up a good fight, like they have done everywhere.
There are no possible settlement.Soon the entertainment industry will realise that they have been wasting their time all along, and that they will eventually have to offer what everybody wants, which is a cheap, effective, legal system, be it unecumbered VOD, global licence, whatever .
Otherwise they will die, simple as that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665101</id>
	<title>Calling Dr. Guliotine</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1247329020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should soon be heard around France in response to this law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should soon be heard around France in response to this law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should soon be heard around France in response to this law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665261</id>
	<title>The Joy of Dimensionless Quantities</title>
	<author>pushing-robot</author>
	<datestamp>1247331540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP)</p></div><p>"Your honor, on the slight chance that this court does not accept either the termite mound or the truck-load of bottlecaps, I have also brought this bag containing a sufficient quantity of dead skin cells."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>fine him or her 300,000 ( according to the AFP ) " Your honor , on the slight chance that this court does not accept either the termite mound or the truck-load of bottlecaps , I have also brought this bag containing a sufficient quantity of dead skin cells .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP)"Your honor, on the slight chance that this court does not accept either the termite mound or the truck-load of bottlecaps, I have also brought this bag containing a sufficient quantity of dead skin cells.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665119</id>
	<title>but "three strikes" is such an American concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And "American" is defined as "imbecile" in French dictionaries.</p><p>Shouldn't it be something like "five free kicks", instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And " American " is defined as " imbecile " in French dictionaries.Should n't it be something like " five free kicks " , instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And "American" is defined as "imbecile" in French dictionaries.Shouldn't it be something like "five free kicks", instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668513</id>
	<title>Re:Details</title>
	<author>Xenographic</author>
	<datestamp>1247425440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; While I have no major principal objections to copyright infringers being kicked off internet (if they use internet for the infringement), I would want to know more of the details before making my mind up.</p><p>Have you ever sung "Happy Birthday" in public?  If so, you're a copyright infringer too.</p><p>The net would get pretty empty pretty fast if we actually kicked off all the infringers.  Mind you, the MAFIAA would probably *LOVE* that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; While I have no major principal objections to copyright infringers being kicked off internet ( if they use internet for the infringement ) , I would want to know more of the details before making my mind up.Have you ever sung " Happy Birthday " in public ?
If so , you 're a copyright infringer too.The net would get pretty empty pretty fast if we actually kicked off all the infringers .
Mind you , the MAFIAA would probably * LOVE * that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; While I have no major principal objections to copyright infringers being kicked off internet (if they use internet for the infringement), I would want to know more of the details before making my mind up.Have you ever sung "Happy Birthday" in public?
If so, you're a copyright infringer too.The net would get pretty empty pretty fast if we actually kicked off all the infringers.
Mind you, the MAFIAA would probably *LOVE* that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665867</id>
	<title>Re:The Joy of Dimensionless Quantities</title>
	<author>arkhan\_jg</author>
	<datestamp>1247429940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be silly! They're after 300&#226;.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be silly !
They 're after 300   .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be silly!
They're after 300â.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665077</id>
	<title>Still have to make it in front of constitutionnal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247328840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This parody of a law Still have to make it in front of constitutionnal council.</p><p>Naboleon Sarkozy is playing a "W Bush" card... constitution... that's just a piece of paper...</p><p>I wonder why politician who purposefully push -illegal- laws don't end up in jail...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This parody of a law Still have to make it in front of constitutionnal council.Naboleon Sarkozy is playing a " W Bush " card... constitution... that 's just a piece of paper...I wonder why politician who purposefully push -illegal- laws do n't end up in jail.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This parody of a law Still have to make it in front of constitutionnal council.Naboleon Sarkozy is playing a "W Bush" card... constitution... that's just a piece of paper...I wonder why politician who purposefully push -illegal- laws don't end up in jail...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667669</id>
	<title>Suspect it'll get knocked down again</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1247417340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect this one'll get knocked down on the same grounds as the last one: it places the decision of guilt or innocence in an administrative body that isn't following judicial rules, and just handing selection of the sentence over to a judge isn't sufficient to cure that flaw. I think the only way HADOPI will fly is if their either hand the determination of guilt over to a real court or make the administrative body follow all the procedures of a real court including the presumption of innocence and placing the burden of proof on the complaintant. The proponents of HADOPI aren't going to do either, because those are exactly what HADOPI is intended to bypass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect this one 'll get knocked down on the same grounds as the last one : it places the decision of guilt or innocence in an administrative body that is n't following judicial rules , and just handing selection of the sentence over to a judge is n't sufficient to cure that flaw .
I think the only way HADOPI will fly is if their either hand the determination of guilt over to a real court or make the administrative body follow all the procedures of a real court including the presumption of innocence and placing the burden of proof on the complaintant .
The proponents of HADOPI are n't going to do either , because those are exactly what HADOPI is intended to bypass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect this one'll get knocked down on the same grounds as the last one: it places the decision of guilt or innocence in an administrative body that isn't following judicial rules, and just handing selection of the sentence over to a judge isn't sufficient to cure that flaw.
I think the only way HADOPI will fly is if their either hand the determination of guilt over to a real court or make the administrative body follow all the procedures of a real court including the presumption of innocence and placing the burden of proof on the complaintant.
The proponents of HADOPI aren't going to do either, because those are exactly what HADOPI is intended to bypass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666893</id>
	<title>So they just bought some judges?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247408280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously. This sounds like they now just had to buy some judges, who will just do what Sarkozy tells them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
This sounds like they now just had to buy some judges , who will just do what Sarkozy tells them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
This sounds like they now just had to buy some judges, who will just do what Sarkozy tells them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665951</id>
	<title>Re:A war of attrition...</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247431740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is why all political decisions should be confined to a small enough region that any citizen in the area is close enough to conveniently go and flatten the responsible politicians nose.</i> </p><p>You can tell that the geek is a big city boy.</p><p> In the small town it is the dissenter who gets flattened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why all political decisions should be confined to a small enough region that any citizen in the area is close enough to conveniently go and flatten the responsible politicians nose .
You can tell that the geek is a big city boy .
In the small town it is the dissenter who gets flattened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why all political decisions should be confined to a small enough region that any citizen in the area is close enough to conveniently go and flatten the responsible politicians nose.
You can tell that the geek is a big city boy.
In the small town it is the dissenter who gets flattened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668061</id>
	<title>Re:Two years prison time. Lovely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247420700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am french but have been living in the US for 10 years.<br>Everytime I chat with french friends I am amazed at their views on illegal downloads of songs/movies.<br>One friend was even saying that at the bank where he works, there was a shared drive just to let people share songs, shows, movies. That included some porn. It had been set-up by one of the IT guy.<br>To me this is mind boggling.<br>I could understand students with little money doing this, but most of my friends now have jobs making good money.<br>I think in France there is this mentality that if you pay for something that you could have got for free (even illegally) you are an idiot.<br>To the point where it has become a national sport. I personally find that very sad.</p><p>One french friend was visiting me in the US recently, I had some Netflix DVDs, I told him how it worked and asked him if they had something similar in France. He was very surprised about the whole Netflix concepts and replied: "that would never work in France, everybody downloads (illegally) movies".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am french but have been living in the US for 10 years.Everytime I chat with french friends I am amazed at their views on illegal downloads of songs/movies.One friend was even saying that at the bank where he works , there was a shared drive just to let people share songs , shows , movies .
That included some porn .
It had been set-up by one of the IT guy.To me this is mind boggling.I could understand students with little money doing this , but most of my friends now have jobs making good money.I think in France there is this mentality that if you pay for something that you could have got for free ( even illegally ) you are an idiot.To the point where it has become a national sport .
I personally find that very sad.One french friend was visiting me in the US recently , I had some Netflix DVDs , I told him how it worked and asked him if they had something similar in France .
He was very surprised about the whole Netflix concepts and replied : " that would never work in France , everybody downloads ( illegally ) movies " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am french but have been living in the US for 10 years.Everytime I chat with french friends I am amazed at their views on illegal downloads of songs/movies.One friend was even saying that at the bank where he works, there was a shared drive just to let people share songs, shows, movies.
That included some porn.
It had been set-up by one of the IT guy.To me this is mind boggling.I could understand students with little money doing this, but most of my friends now have jobs making good money.I think in France there is this mentality that if you pay for something that you could have got for free (even illegally) you are an idiot.To the point where it has become a national sport.
I personally find that very sad.One french friend was visiting me in the US recently, I had some Netflix DVDs, I told him how it worked and asked him if they had something similar in France.
He was very surprised about the whole Netflix concepts and replied: "that would never work in France, everybody downloads (illegally) movies".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666169</id>
	<title>Details</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247394180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like so often before, the devil is in the details.
<br> <br>
While I have no major principal objections to copyright infringers being kicked off internet (if they use internet for the infringement), I would want to know more of the details before making my mind up.
<br> <br>
For starters, I would want everybody to be given a fair trial, and only when they have been found guilty three times should they be kicked off internet. I get the impression that with the present suggestion it's enough to be accused of copyright infringement three times to be kicked off. That is taking other people's right too easily: it should require a trial according to the country's requirements.
<br> <br>
Secondly, I think there should be a time limit to how long you are banned from internet. I see no reason why a mere copyright infringer should be banned from internet for life. It's not like you can use copyright infringement to kill someone...
<br> <br>
Thirdly, I would like to know what provisions the law provides to protect the technically challenged. Suppose my neighbour hacks into my WLAN, and starts sharing files. I suppose the recording industry would like to hold me responsible, but should they be able to do so? In my opinion, no. Granted, the recording industry will not like the "I am an idiot with technology"-defence, but this kind of trial should be held to the same standards as all others: the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable (or similar) doubt.
<br> <br>
Fourthly, what of family members? Suppose I get kicked off internet for copyright infringement. What of my wife and my children? As far as I know, no modern democracy allows collective punishment, so it should be acceptable for my wife and children to get internet access at home. So why then bother with banning me, if the effect is that the internet connection is simply passed to my wife?
<br> <br>
<br> <br>
For an interesting comparison, move the "getting banned from internet for copyright infringement" to the world of printed matter: any person or company thrice accused  of copyright infringement gets banned (for a short period of time, eg a year) from reading and writing. The effects would be quite devastating... You would have to have somebody read the bus timetable to you, you would have to have somebody write your checks for you, you would have to have somebody read your letters to you... And if a newspaper were accused of infringing someone's copyright three times, they could obviously not print a single letter the next year!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like so often before , the devil is in the details .
While I have no major principal objections to copyright infringers being kicked off internet ( if they use internet for the infringement ) , I would want to know more of the details before making my mind up .
For starters , I would want everybody to be given a fair trial , and only when they have been found guilty three times should they be kicked off internet .
I get the impression that with the present suggestion it 's enough to be accused of copyright infringement three times to be kicked off .
That is taking other people 's right too easily : it should require a trial according to the country 's requirements .
Secondly , I think there should be a time limit to how long you are banned from internet .
I see no reason why a mere copyright infringer should be banned from internet for life .
It 's not like you can use copyright infringement to kill someone.. . Thirdly , I would like to know what provisions the law provides to protect the technically challenged .
Suppose my neighbour hacks into my WLAN , and starts sharing files .
I suppose the recording industry would like to hold me responsible , but should they be able to do so ?
In my opinion , no .
Granted , the recording industry will not like the " I am an idiot with technology " -defence , but this kind of trial should be held to the same standards as all others : the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable ( or similar ) doubt .
Fourthly , what of family members ?
Suppose I get kicked off internet for copyright infringement .
What of my wife and my children ?
As far as I know , no modern democracy allows collective punishment , so it should be acceptable for my wife and children to get internet access at home .
So why then bother with banning me , if the effect is that the internet connection is simply passed to my wife ?
For an interesting comparison , move the " getting banned from internet for copyright infringement " to the world of printed matter : any person or company thrice accused of copyright infringement gets banned ( for a short period of time , eg a year ) from reading and writing .
The effects would be quite devastating... You would have to have somebody read the bus timetable to you , you would have to have somebody write your checks for you , you would have to have somebody read your letters to you... And if a newspaper were accused of infringing someone 's copyright three times , they could obviously not print a single letter the next year !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like so often before, the devil is in the details.
While I have no major principal objections to copyright infringers being kicked off internet (if they use internet for the infringement), I would want to know more of the details before making my mind up.
For starters, I would want everybody to be given a fair trial, and only when they have been found guilty three times should they be kicked off internet.
I get the impression that with the present suggestion it's enough to be accused of copyright infringement three times to be kicked off.
That is taking other people's right too easily: it should require a trial according to the country's requirements.
Secondly, I think there should be a time limit to how long you are banned from internet.
I see no reason why a mere copyright infringer should be banned from internet for life.
It's not like you can use copyright infringement to kill someone...
 
Thirdly, I would like to know what provisions the law provides to protect the technically challenged.
Suppose my neighbour hacks into my WLAN, and starts sharing files.
I suppose the recording industry would like to hold me responsible, but should they be able to do so?
In my opinion, no.
Granted, the recording industry will not like the "I am an idiot with technology"-defence, but this kind of trial should be held to the same standards as all others: the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable (or similar) doubt.
Fourthly, what of family members?
Suppose I get kicked off internet for copyright infringement.
What of my wife and my children?
As far as I know, no modern democracy allows collective punishment, so it should be acceptable for my wife and children to get internet access at home.
So why then bother with banning me, if the effect is that the internet connection is simply passed to my wife?
For an interesting comparison, move the "getting banned from internet for copyright infringement" to the world of printed matter: any person or company thrice accused  of copyright infringement gets banned (for a short period of time, eg a year) from reading and writing.
The effects would be quite devastating... You would have to have somebody read the bus timetable to you, you would have to have somebody write your checks for you, you would have to have somebody read your letters to you... And if a newspaper were accused of infringing someone's copyright three times, they could obviously not print a single letter the next year!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666217</id>
	<title>Laws based on baseball or cowboy games?</title>
	<author>fantomas</author>
	<datestamp>1247395080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laws based on baseball rules ("three strikes and you're out") or morality based on "cowboys and indians" games ("we are the good guys and you are the bad guys") seem to be fine when you're 8 years old. But for adults in the real world? Please, I thought we'd left that behind with George Bush and Ronnie Reagan.</p><p>The real world is far too nuanced and complicated for child-logic to fairly run a society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws based on baseball rules ( " three strikes and you 're out " ) or morality based on " cowboys and indians " games ( " we are the good guys and you are the bad guys " ) seem to be fine when you 're 8 years old .
But for adults in the real world ?
Please , I thought we 'd left that behind with George Bush and Ronnie Reagan.The real world is far too nuanced and complicated for child-logic to fairly run a society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws based on baseball rules ("three strikes and you're out") or morality based on "cowboys and indians" games ("we are the good guys and you are the bad guys") seem to be fine when you're 8 years old.
But for adults in the real world?
Please, I thought we'd left that behind with George Bush and Ronnie Reagan.The real world is far too nuanced and complicated for child-logic to fairly run a society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28672701</id>
	<title>Re:Two years prison time. Lovely</title>
	<author>wawadave</author>
	<datestamp>1247421240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is exactly how they are doing this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is exactly how they are doing this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is exactly how they are doing this!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666389</id>
	<title>Re:Any Three Strikes Law Should Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247398680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dunno about your country, in mine a murder sentence is already "for life" (only possible guilty verdict for murder 1st, too). So the first strike is already enough to make sure you won't get a second.</p><p>And, despite being the liberal that I am, I somehow don't think it's excessive...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dunno about your country , in mine a murder sentence is already " for life " ( only possible guilty verdict for murder 1st , too ) .
So the first strike is already enough to make sure you wo n't get a second.And , despite being the liberal that I am , I somehow do n't think it 's excessive.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dunno about your country, in mine a murder sentence is already "for life" (only possible guilty verdict for murder 1st, too).
So the first strike is already enough to make sure you won't get a second.And, despite being the liberal that I am, I somehow don't think it's excessive...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665085</id>
	<title>Time to Mention Roman Polanski?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247328900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman\_Polanski#Sex\_crime\_allegations" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Rape a 13 year old girl</a> [wikipedia.org] and that's no problem. Downloading three Roman Polanski films could mean two years in prison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rape a 13 year old girl [ wikipedia.org ] and that 's no problem .
Downloading three Roman Polanski films could mean two years in prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rape a 13 year old girl [wikipedia.org] and that's no problem.
Downloading three Roman Polanski films could mean two years in prison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668511</id>
	<title>Re:Could be worse</title>
	<author>mariushm</author>
	<datestamp>1247425380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The judge is supposed to give a ruling in 5 minutes... it's obvious no judge will have time to analyze the information received so it's just as bad as the previous law imho... they only changed the law by the tiniest amount so that it would pass</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge is supposed to give a ruling in 5 minutes... it 's obvious no judge will have time to analyze the information received so it 's just as bad as the previous law imho... they only changed the law by the tiniest amount so that it would pass</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge is supposed to give a ruling in 5 minutes... it's obvious no judge will have time to analyze the information received so it's just as bad as the previous law imho... they only changed the law by the tiniest amount so that it would pass</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668179</id>
	<title>Re:Details</title>
	<author>migloo</author>
	<datestamp>1247421660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I would like to know what provisions the law provides to protect the technically challenged. Suppose my neighbour hacks into my WLAN, and starts sharing files.</p></div><p>According to the proposed law, in that case you cannot claim innocence unless you can prove that you used an approved (read: government-provided) protection.
</p><p>
Needless to say, this de facto mandatory software will not be open-source.
</p><p>
Is it too paranoid to think that a convenient side effect of this law would be to install a generalized eavesdropping infrastructure under the guise of protecting the innocent ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to know what provisions the law provides to protect the technically challenged .
Suppose my neighbour hacks into my WLAN , and starts sharing files.According to the proposed law , in that case you can not claim innocence unless you can prove that you used an approved ( read : government-provided ) protection .
Needless to say , this de facto mandatory software will not be open-source .
Is it too paranoid to think that a convenient side effect of this law would be to install a generalized eavesdropping infrastructure under the guise of protecting the innocent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I would like to know what provisions the law provides to protect the technically challenged.
Suppose my neighbour hacks into my WLAN, and starts sharing files.According to the proposed law, in that case you cannot claim innocence unless you can prove that you used an approved (read: government-provided) protection.
Needless to say, this de facto mandatory software will not be open-source.
Is it too paranoid to think that a convenient side effect of this law would be to install a generalized eavesdropping infrastructure under the guise of protecting the innocent ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666355</id>
	<title>Re:Any Three Strikes Law Should Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1247398020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These laws exist for a reason and the reason is simple. To stop the career criminals. The entire point of jail is to STOP you from commiting the crime again.
</p><p>The idea with the 3 strikes rule is that you had 1 warning and 2nd warning and now it is enough. You had 3 changes to obey the law, now the patience of society is up.
</p><p>Your kind seems to think that people should be able to continue to break the same law all their lifes.
</p><p>Tell me something, after how many times must a drunk driver be fined before his driving license is revoked? How many times can I break into your house before I should get more then community service?
</p><p>In the US selling drugs is illegal. You are NOT supposed to do it. So if you do it, you get a sentence. That sentence is NOT payment for your cime. It is not the price for being a drug seller. It is your warning, DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN. How many times should you be told this? American society has decided 2 times. 3rd time is life.
</p><p>I do not agree with the french law, but the three strikes principle seems an awfully good way to get habitual offenders out of society. The alternative is revolving door criminals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These laws exist for a reason and the reason is simple .
To stop the career criminals .
The entire point of jail is to STOP you from commiting the crime again .
The idea with the 3 strikes rule is that you had 1 warning and 2nd warning and now it is enough .
You had 3 changes to obey the law , now the patience of society is up .
Your kind seems to think that people should be able to continue to break the same law all their lifes .
Tell me something , after how many times must a drunk driver be fined before his driving license is revoked ?
How many times can I break into your house before I should get more then community service ?
In the US selling drugs is illegal .
You are NOT supposed to do it .
So if you do it , you get a sentence .
That sentence is NOT payment for your cime .
It is not the price for being a drug seller .
It is your warning , DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN .
How many times should you be told this ?
American society has decided 2 times .
3rd time is life .
I do not agree with the french law , but the three strikes principle seems an awfully good way to get habitual offenders out of society .
The alternative is revolving door criminals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These laws exist for a reason and the reason is simple.
To stop the career criminals.
The entire point of jail is to STOP you from commiting the crime again.
The idea with the 3 strikes rule is that you had 1 warning and 2nd warning and now it is enough.
You had 3 changes to obey the law, now the patience of society is up.
Your kind seems to think that people should be able to continue to break the same law all their lifes.
Tell me something, after how many times must a drunk driver be fined before his driving license is revoked?
How many times can I break into your house before I should get more then community service?
In the US selling drugs is illegal.
You are NOT supposed to do it.
So if you do it, you get a sentence.
That sentence is NOT payment for your cime.
It is not the price for being a drug seller.
It is your warning, DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN.
How many times should you be told this?
American society has decided 2 times.
3rd time is life.
I do not agree with the french law, but the three strikes principle seems an awfully good way to get habitual offenders out of society.
The alternative is revolving door criminals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665075</id>
	<title>No due process, just a rubber stamp</title>
	<author>Husgaard</author>
	<datestamp>1247328780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This new legislation may also be declared unconstitutional.</p><p>This time they try with a special court consisting of one judge to decide cases. The judge may not hear the parties involved, but is only allowed to give his decision solely based on a report from the new state antipiracy office. He is supposed to work expediently and not use more than 45 minutes per case.</p><p>Also language has been changed in the new law text possibly making it legal to eavesdrop private communications like email for antipiracy purposes.</p><p>The law text passed the senate wednesday, and is expected to pass the national assembly soon.</p><p>Links in french: <a href="http://www.numerama.com/magazine/13409-Le-Senat-adopte-la-loi-Hadopi-2-en-un-apres-midi.html" title="numerama.com">Numerama</a> [numerama.com] <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2009/07/10/hadopi-2-vers-une-surveillance-des-courriers-electroniques\_1217722\_651865.html" title="lemonde.fr">Le Monde</a> [lemonde.fr] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This new legislation may also be declared unconstitutional.This time they try with a special court consisting of one judge to decide cases .
The judge may not hear the parties involved , but is only allowed to give his decision solely based on a report from the new state antipiracy office .
He is supposed to work expediently and not use more than 45 minutes per case.Also language has been changed in the new law text possibly making it legal to eavesdrop private communications like email for antipiracy purposes.The law text passed the senate wednesday , and is expected to pass the national assembly soon.Links in french : Numerama [ numerama.com ] Le Monde [ lemonde.fr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This new legislation may also be declared unconstitutional.This time they try with a special court consisting of one judge to decide cases.
The judge may not hear the parties involved, but is only allowed to give his decision solely based on a report from the new state antipiracy office.
He is supposed to work expediently and not use more than 45 minutes per case.Also language has been changed in the new law text possibly making it legal to eavesdrop private communications like email for antipiracy purposes.The law text passed the senate wednesday, and is expected to pass the national assembly soon.Links in french: Numerama [numerama.com] Le Monde [lemonde.fr] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665129</id>
	<title>This provides the "out" for politicians.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guaranteed anyone in power will not have to actually be found guilty of it. Sarkozy can violate this all he wants, he'll never have to answer for it. For those in power the judge will always find the charge was unwarranted. If you're a commoner, well too bad. Let them eat dialup!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guaranteed anyone in power will not have to actually be found guilty of it .
Sarkozy can violate this all he wants , he 'll never have to answer for it .
For those in power the judge will always find the charge was unwarranted .
If you 're a commoner , well too bad .
Let them eat dialup !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guaranteed anyone in power will not have to actually be found guilty of it.
Sarkozy can violate this all he wants, he'll never have to answer for it.
For those in power the judge will always find the charge was unwarranted.
If you're a commoner, well too bad.
Let them eat dialup!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666613</id>
	<title>It's not going anywhere: zombie bill</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1247403000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just Sark&#246;zy trying to save face. This law is even more unconstitutionnal that the previous one, and it's going to be bitchslapped down by the constitutionnal council once more, and worse. For instance, they've added a crime for not securing one's internet connection, punished by a hefty fine. Given that it is impossible to achieve 100\% security, even for a security professional, it is simply absurd to require it of the common net user.</p><p>They still don't care that it's technically impossible. They believe their own bullshit.</p><p>Everyone knows this won't pass the CC. Even most of the majority. (Many are not pleased that Sarkol&eacute;on is marching them towards the cliff, but they are good little soldiers, like GOP congressmen under Bush. Which is fitting, considering how Sark&#246;zy got elected by applying Rove's methods.) The Council was damning in its first rejection. Not only did it nuke the damn thing's only mean of coercion, charitably leaving the useless part standing; but it also reserved the right to nuke it further in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just Sark   zy trying to save face .
This law is even more unconstitutionnal that the previous one , and it 's going to be bitchslapped down by the constitutionnal council once more , and worse .
For instance , they 've added a crime for not securing one 's internet connection , punished by a hefty fine .
Given that it is impossible to achieve 100 \ % security , even for a security professional , it is simply absurd to require it of the common net user.They still do n't care that it 's technically impossible .
They believe their own bullshit.Everyone knows this wo n't pass the CC .
Even most of the majority .
( Many are not pleased that Sarkol   on is marching them towards the cliff , but they are good little soldiers , like GOP congressmen under Bush .
Which is fitting , considering how Sark   zy got elected by applying Rove 's methods .
) The Council was damning in its first rejection .
Not only did it nuke the damn thing 's only mean of coercion , charitably leaving the useless part standing ; but it also reserved the right to nuke it further in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just Sarközy trying to save face.
This law is even more unconstitutionnal that the previous one, and it's going to be bitchslapped down by the constitutionnal council once more, and worse.
For instance, they've added a crime for not securing one's internet connection, punished by a hefty fine.
Given that it is impossible to achieve 100\% security, even for a security professional, it is simply absurd to require it of the common net user.They still don't care that it's technically impossible.
They believe their own bullshit.Everyone knows this won't pass the CC.
Even most of the majority.
(Many are not pleased that Sarkoléon is marching them towards the cliff, but they are good little soldiers, like GOP congressmen under Bush.
Which is fitting, considering how Sarközy got elected by applying Rove's methods.
) The Council was damning in its first rejection.
Not only did it nuke the damn thing's only mean of coercion, charitably leaving the useless part standing; but it also reserved the right to nuke it further in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745</id>
	<title>Re:The court gets all of 3 options, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247340420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reality is bit uglier than what the article might say. When your IP will be caught exchanging one of the 10.000 referenced files on a p2p network - the HADOPI being the one who will be monitoring the p2p networks - this addendum to the three-strikes law will trigger the following events:<br>
&nbsp; - under a special, fast track process akin to the one followed for a speed ticket, the judge might order your ISP to cut your connexion, or (logical OR, not XOR) have you pay 1.500&#226;. This is not a trial, it's a judge statement, and you'll have to go to court to defend yourself, but not before having your connexion cut and the fine paid. Btw, you'll still pay for the connexion that have been cut. You can get protection from this though: you need to install a (today inexistant) HADOPI-certified spyware (read network packet scanning, email reading spyware) on your - Windows - computer. This will magically make you not liable of this part of the law<br>
&nbsp; - you're still liable under the DADVSI (counterfeiting) law which can, on another judgment, get you up to 300.000&#226; fine or (logical OR...) 3 years in prison<br>
&nbsp; - and then I don't see anything in the words of the proposed law that would prevent the copyright owner from suing you for lost revenue</p><p>For the smart among you all, you'd have already noticed that everything is trigger by just one thing: an IP on a p2p network. The IP. Something absolutely, positively unfalsifiable, that can't be spoofed. Right?</p><p>And soon, if LOPPSI goes through and you've used an encrypting bittorrent client, you'll also be sued under the premise that you're planning terrorist actions.</p><p>The most fun part is that this addendum in it's current state allows for the HADOPI commission to "read" your - and I quote - "electronic communications". Not "p2p connexions", not "bittorrent connexions": "electronic communications". Email, web, IM, VOIP: it's electronic, it's scanned. The french government is just passing a law to get a legal eavedropping right on all national internet communications.</p><p>I love being french those days...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is bit uglier than what the article might say .
When your IP will be caught exchanging one of the 10.000 referenced files on a p2p network - the HADOPI being the one who will be monitoring the p2p networks - this addendum to the three-strikes law will trigger the following events :   - under a special , fast track process akin to the one followed for a speed ticket , the judge might order your ISP to cut your connexion , or ( logical OR , not XOR ) have you pay 1.500   .
This is not a trial , it 's a judge statement , and you 'll have to go to court to defend yourself , but not before having your connexion cut and the fine paid .
Btw , you 'll still pay for the connexion that have been cut .
You can get protection from this though : you need to install a ( today inexistant ) HADOPI-certified spyware ( read network packet scanning , email reading spyware ) on your - Windows - computer .
This will magically make you not liable of this part of the law   - you 're still liable under the DADVSI ( counterfeiting ) law which can , on another judgment , get you up to 300.000   fine or ( logical OR... ) 3 years in prison   - and then I do n't see anything in the words of the proposed law that would prevent the copyright owner from suing you for lost revenueFor the smart among you all , you 'd have already noticed that everything is trigger by just one thing : an IP on a p2p network .
The IP .
Something absolutely , positively unfalsifiable , that ca n't be spoofed .
Right ? And soon , if LOPPSI goes through and you 've used an encrypting bittorrent client , you 'll also be sued under the premise that you 're planning terrorist actions.The most fun part is that this addendum in it 's current state allows for the HADOPI commission to " read " your - and I quote - " electronic communications " .
Not " p2p connexions " , not " bittorrent connexions " : " electronic communications " .
Email , web , IM , VOIP : it 's electronic , it 's scanned .
The french government is just passing a law to get a legal eavedropping right on all national internet communications.I love being french those days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality is bit uglier than what the article might say.
When your IP will be caught exchanging one of the 10.000 referenced files on a p2p network - the HADOPI being the one who will be monitoring the p2p networks - this addendum to the three-strikes law will trigger the following events:
  - under a special, fast track process akin to the one followed for a speed ticket, the judge might order your ISP to cut your connexion, or (logical OR, not XOR) have you pay 1.500â.
This is not a trial, it's a judge statement, and you'll have to go to court to defend yourself, but not before having your connexion cut and the fine paid.
Btw, you'll still pay for the connexion that have been cut.
You can get protection from this though: you need to install a (today inexistant) HADOPI-certified spyware (read network packet scanning, email reading spyware) on your - Windows - computer.
This will magically make you not liable of this part of the law
  - you're still liable under the DADVSI (counterfeiting) law which can, on another judgment, get you up to 300.000â fine or (logical OR...) 3 years in prison
  - and then I don't see anything in the words of the proposed law that would prevent the copyright owner from suing you for lost revenueFor the smart among you all, you'd have already noticed that everything is trigger by just one thing: an IP on a p2p network.
The IP.
Something absolutely, positively unfalsifiable, that can't be spoofed.
Right?And soon, if LOPPSI goes through and you've used an encrypting bittorrent client, you'll also be sued under the premise that you're planning terrorist actions.The most fun part is that this addendum in it's current state allows for the HADOPI commission to "read" your - and I quote - "electronic communications".
Not "p2p connexions", not "bittorrent connexions": "electronic communications".
Email, web, IM, VOIP: it's electronic, it's scanned.
The french government is just passing a law to get a legal eavedropping right on all national internet communications.I love being french those days...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664965</id>
	<title>Could be worse</title>
	<author>Again</author>
	<datestamp>1247326860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least now it requires a judge to declare guilt.  This takes the responsibility away from the ISPs which is also a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least now it requires a judge to declare guilt .
This takes the responsibility away from the ISPs which is also a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least now it requires a judge to declare guilt.
This takes the responsibility away from the ISPs which is also a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665219</id>
	<title>Offtopic......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247330940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this is offtopic, but is anyone else having problems getting the comment slider all the way down to show comments -1 and below with Firefox 3.5?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is offtopic , but is anyone else having problems getting the comment slider all the way down to show comments -1 and below with Firefox 3.5 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is offtopic, but is anyone else having problems getting the comment slider all the way down to show comments -1 and below with Firefox 3.5?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665141</id>
	<title>When bribed, politicans go stupid.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1247329680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what difference 'banning from internet by judges' does make compared to 'banning from internet through a privately sponsored decereipt govt. instutition' in regard to freedom of speech and information. can you ban people from free speech ? can you ban them from getting information ? are french lawmakers THAT stupid not to be able to establish the correlation ? no. therefore, we can only conclude that the bribes fucking RIAA dogs have expended in france are SO big that lawmakers dont hesitate to even ridicule themselves by their own hands.</p><p>observe the power of money. if you let 'businesses be', like that moron alan greenspan preached us in the last 30 years and put on mouths of EVERY goddamn economist everywhere, this happens. they start to buy laws through the money they made from you.</p><p>another medieval experience brought to you by the church of holistic economy. enjoy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what difference 'banning from internet by judges ' does make compared to 'banning from internet through a privately sponsored decereipt govt .
instutition ' in regard to freedom of speech and information .
can you ban people from free speech ?
can you ban them from getting information ?
are french lawmakers THAT stupid not to be able to establish the correlation ?
no. therefore , we can only conclude that the bribes fucking RIAA dogs have expended in france are SO big that lawmakers dont hesitate to even ridicule themselves by their own hands.observe the power of money .
if you let 'businesses be ' , like that moron alan greenspan preached us in the last 30 years and put on mouths of EVERY goddamn economist everywhere , this happens .
they start to buy laws through the money they made from you.another medieval experience brought to you by the church of holistic economy .
enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what difference 'banning from internet by judges' does make compared to 'banning from internet through a privately sponsored decereipt govt.
instutition' in regard to freedom of speech and information.
can you ban people from free speech ?
can you ban them from getting information ?
are french lawmakers THAT stupid not to be able to establish the correlation ?
no. therefore, we can only conclude that the bribes fucking RIAA dogs have expended in france are SO big that lawmakers dont hesitate to even ridicule themselves by their own hands.observe the power of money.
if you let 'businesses be', like that moron alan greenspan preached us in the last 30 years and put on mouths of EVERY goddamn economist everywhere, this happens.
they start to buy laws through the money they made from you.another medieval experience brought to you by the church of holistic economy.
enjoy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665661</id>
	<title>Any Three Strikes Law Should Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247338800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea of a "3 strikes" law makes me irate. Murders', rapists', and child molesters' past offenses are assessed during sentencing, but someone selling small quantities of pot is treated like a drug lord for their third offense. Of course, someone with two murder convictions will be sentenced appropriately in most cases. If you need a law that mandates outrageous sentences against the will of judges and juries, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of a " 3 strikes " law makes me irate .
Murders ' , rapists ' , and child molesters ' past offenses are assessed during sentencing , but someone selling small quantities of pot is treated like a drug lord for their third offense .
Of course , someone with two murder convictions will be sentenced appropriately in most cases .
If you need a law that mandates outrageous sentences against the will of judges and juries , the punishment does n't fit the crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of a "3 strikes" law makes me irate.
Murders', rapists', and child molesters' past offenses are assessed during sentencing, but someone selling small quantities of pot is treated like a drug lord for their third offense.
Of course, someone with two murder convictions will be sentenced appropriately in most cases.
If you need a law that mandates outrageous sentences against the will of judges and juries, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665697</id>
	<title>text of law</title>
	<author>belmolis</author>
	<datestamp>1247339520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
For those who read French, <a href="http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl08-498.html" title="senat.fr">here</a> [senat.fr] is the actual text of the law.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who read French , here [ senat.fr ] is the actual text of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
For those who read French, here [senat.fr] is the actual text of the law.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666619</id>
	<title>Another dilemma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247403120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you rather eat feces or roaches?</p><p>It's called a <i>false dichotomy,</i> genius.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you rather eat feces or roaches ? It 's called a false dichotomy , genius .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you rather eat feces or roaches?It's called a false dichotomy, genius.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666377</id>
	<title>Fuck the pirates and their supporters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247398440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Were they expecting to be able to download whatever they want without any repercussions? Which law DID they want? How can you have ANY law at all and that law being less strict than this?</p><p>O hay - I will just take OpenOffice and incorporate it into my proprietary software and sell it, because fuck whatever rights and fuck the authors and their "imaginary property". Or I guess not.</p><p>In conclusion: Fuck pirates and their supporters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Were they expecting to be able to download whatever they want without any repercussions ?
Which law DID they want ?
How can you have ANY law at all and that law being less strict than this ? O hay - I will just take OpenOffice and incorporate it into my proprietary software and sell it , because fuck whatever rights and fuck the authors and their " imaginary property " .
Or I guess not.In conclusion : Fuck pirates and their supporters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were they expecting to be able to download whatever they want without any repercussions?
Which law DID they want?
How can you have ANY law at all and that law being less strict than this?O hay - I will just take OpenOffice and incorporate it into my proprietary software and sell it, because fuck whatever rights and fuck the authors and their "imaginary property".
Or I guess not.In conclusion: Fuck pirates and their supporters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668013</id>
	<title>ROFLMAO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247420400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct.  I predict the majority of the world will spoof their IP as a french IP when using P2P just because of this -- so much potential for hilarity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct .
I predict the majority of the world will spoof their IP as a french IP when using P2P just because of this -- so much potential for hilarity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct.
I predict the majority of the world will spoof their IP as a french IP when using P2P just because of this -- so much potential for hilarity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28669957</id>
	<title>Re:No due process, just a rubber stamp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247394180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Woosh</htmltext>
<tokenext>Woosh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woosh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667339</id>
	<title>it requires a judge to declare guilt?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247414340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it requires a judge to declare guilt.</i></p><p>Where does it say that?<br>That would be the correct legal way to do it, in my extremely limited understanding of french law.  But every article I've seen on the matter only says the judge has some say over sentencing, not that either judges or juries will have any say over whether the accused is declared guilty or innocent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it requires a judge to declare guilt.Where does it say that ? That would be the correct legal way to do it , in my extremely limited understanding of french law .
But every article I 've seen on the matter only says the judge has some say over sentencing , not that either judges or juries will have any say over whether the accused is declared guilty or innocent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it requires a judge to declare guilt.Where does it say that?That would be the correct legal way to do it, in my extremely limited understanding of french law.
But every article I've seen on the matter only says the judge has some say over sentencing, not that either judges or juries will have any say over whether the accused is declared guilty or innocent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665187</id>
	<title>A war of attrition...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247330400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time you think you've defeated a bad law, it just comes back in time for the next legislative cycle. Politicians and the interests that control them are patient and persistent, while regular people can only take so much time and energy from their lives to fight these causes. Especially today, when five or six examples of gross injustice come across your average news feed every single day.</p><p>And thus corruption and greed prevail; this is how we can all belong to something that nobody wants any part of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time you think you 've defeated a bad law , it just comes back in time for the next legislative cycle .
Politicians and the interests that control them are patient and persistent , while regular people can only take so much time and energy from their lives to fight these causes .
Especially today , when five or six examples of gross injustice come across your average news feed every single day.And thus corruption and greed prevail ; this is how we can all belong to something that nobody wants any part of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time you think you've defeated a bad law, it just comes back in time for the next legislative cycle.
Politicians and the interests that control them are patient and persistent, while regular people can only take so much time and energy from their lives to fight these causes.
Especially today, when five or six examples of gross injustice come across your average news feed every single day.And thus corruption and greed prevail; this is how we can all belong to something that nobody wants any part of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665127</id>
	<title>When did france...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... become so bourgeois?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... become so bourgeois ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... become so bourgeois?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665223</id>
	<title>I really ask myself</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1247331000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much do these top guys get payed for this, by whom... This has noting to do with fair businesses or upholding the law... This has everything to do with same very rich influencial people who can buy everything. Even a profit on a lousy businessmodel. It's the same as me, making steamengines and getting a hefy reward for every combustion engine that is being sold. Those combustion engines are stealing money away from the steamengine afterall...

When will people finally stand up to this abuse?

(everything is so clear after a good bottle of whiskey, I can recommend it to anyone here)</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much do these top guys get payed for this , by whom... This has noting to do with fair businesses or upholding the law... This has everything to do with same very rich influencial people who can buy everything .
Even a profit on a lousy businessmodel .
It 's the same as me , making steamengines and getting a hefy reward for every combustion engine that is being sold .
Those combustion engines are stealing money away from the steamengine afterall.. . When will people finally stand up to this abuse ?
( everything is so clear after a good bottle of whiskey , I can recommend it to anyone here )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much do these top guys get payed for this, by whom... This has noting to do with fair businesses or upholding the law... This has everything to do with same very rich influencial people who can buy everything.
Even a profit on a lousy businessmodel.
It's the same as me, making steamengines and getting a hefy reward for every combustion engine that is being sold.
Those combustion engines are stealing money away from the steamengine afterall...

When will people finally stand up to this abuse?
(everything is so clear after a good bottle of whiskey, I can recommend it to anyone here)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666339</id>
	<title>Re:Two years prison time. Lovely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247397720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to a recent, anonymous study done in my country, if they catch everyone they'd have to lock up about 2/3 of the population between the age of 16 and 25.</p><p>Time to build some more prisons, France. And get used to a lack of people knowing anything about computers at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to a recent , anonymous study done in my country , if they catch everyone they 'd have to lock up about 2/3 of the population between the age of 16 and 25.Time to build some more prisons , France .
And get used to a lack of people knowing anything about computers at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to a recent, anonymous study done in my country, if they catch everyone they'd have to lock up about 2/3 of the population between the age of 16 and 25.Time to build some more prisons, France.
And get used to a lack of people knowing anything about computers at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665581</id>
	<title>Re:Un, Deux, Trois........Zoot Alors!</title>
	<author>Amazing Quantum Man</author>
	<datestamp>1247337240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheese eating surrender monkeys, who surrendered to the RIAA (and the French equivalent).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheese eating surrender monkeys , who surrendered to the RIAA ( and the French equivalent ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheese eating surrender monkeys, who surrendered to the RIAA (and the French equivalent).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667523</id>
	<title>Problem: it's robbing people of their civil rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247416200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that in today's society you can't really kick people of the internet any more without robbing them of their civil rights. Freedom of expression? Nowadays almost no one gets unaffiliated communications any other way, so if you can't publish them on the internet you have no free speech left. The right to other people's free speech? Well, ditto, almost all socially and politically relevant free speech is published on the internet nowadays. Similarly, you need the internet to make a politically informed decision in the voting booth. It's one of the defining points of modern civilised society that you do not rob criminals of their civil and political rights. For one thing, we rightly judge societies by how they treat the people at their mercy, but more importantly, it prevents governments from making things that are not immoral illegal and then preventing anyone who objects to vote them out of office. Damaging that very important concept would set a very dangerous precedent indeed.<br>To return to the article, while I think it's nice to see that at least this version of the law has some accountability in it, in that the decision has to be made by an independent judge, on the whole I think it is a leap backwards because it is at odds with the concept that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. The ban I already discussed, but the other options are similarly draconian. Two years for a bit of file sharing? Or E300k for downloading a E1,-- song? That's a lot worse than a prison sentence in many ways. Most people don't even have that much money and will be completely robbed of their lives. And why? Because a big fat rich conglomeration of corporations doesn't like file sharing. You know what? Corporations can't feel pain, love, hate, desolation, powerlessness, loneliness or joy. They don't have beautiful memories, interesting experiences, nor the certainty of death. They are not worthy of our empathy. The poor sod who would be charged under these laws most definitely is. That alone tells us that these laws are wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that in today 's society you ca n't really kick people of the internet any more without robbing them of their civil rights .
Freedom of expression ?
Nowadays almost no one gets unaffiliated communications any other way , so if you ca n't publish them on the internet you have no free speech left .
The right to other people 's free speech ?
Well , ditto , almost all socially and politically relevant free speech is published on the internet nowadays .
Similarly , you need the internet to make a politically informed decision in the voting booth .
It 's one of the defining points of modern civilised society that you do not rob criminals of their civil and political rights .
For one thing , we rightly judge societies by how they treat the people at their mercy , but more importantly , it prevents governments from making things that are not immoral illegal and then preventing anyone who objects to vote them out of office .
Damaging that very important concept would set a very dangerous precedent indeed.To return to the article , while I think it 's nice to see that at least this version of the law has some accountability in it , in that the decision has to be made by an independent judge , on the whole I think it is a leap backwards because it is at odds with the concept that the punishment should be proportional to the crime .
The ban I already discussed , but the other options are similarly draconian .
Two years for a bit of file sharing ?
Or E300k for downloading a E1,-- song ?
That 's a lot worse than a prison sentence in many ways .
Most people do n't even have that much money and will be completely robbed of their lives .
And why ?
Because a big fat rich conglomeration of corporations does n't like file sharing .
You know what ?
Corporations ca n't feel pain , love , hate , desolation , powerlessness , loneliness or joy .
They do n't have beautiful memories , interesting experiences , nor the certainty of death .
They are not worthy of our empathy .
The poor sod who would be charged under these laws most definitely is .
That alone tells us that these laws are wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that in today's society you can't really kick people of the internet any more without robbing them of their civil rights.
Freedom of expression?
Nowadays almost no one gets unaffiliated communications any other way, so if you can't publish them on the internet you have no free speech left.
The right to other people's free speech?
Well, ditto, almost all socially and politically relevant free speech is published on the internet nowadays.
Similarly, you need the internet to make a politically informed decision in the voting booth.
It's one of the defining points of modern civilised society that you do not rob criminals of their civil and political rights.
For one thing, we rightly judge societies by how they treat the people at their mercy, but more importantly, it prevents governments from making things that are not immoral illegal and then preventing anyone who objects to vote them out of office.
Damaging that very important concept would set a very dangerous precedent indeed.To return to the article, while I think it's nice to see that at least this version of the law has some accountability in it, in that the decision has to be made by an independent judge, on the whole I think it is a leap backwards because it is at odds with the concept that the punishment should be proportional to the crime.
The ban I already discussed, but the other options are similarly draconian.
Two years for a bit of file sharing?
Or E300k for downloading a E1,-- song?
That's a lot worse than a prison sentence in many ways.
Most people don't even have that much money and will be completely robbed of their lives.
And why?
Because a big fat rich conglomeration of corporations doesn't like file sharing.
You know what?
Corporations can't feel pain, love, hate, desolation, powerlessness, loneliness or joy.
They don't have beautiful memories, interesting experiences, nor the certainty of death.
They are not worthy of our empathy.
The poor sod who would be charged under these laws most definitely is.
That alone tells us that these laws are wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665811</id>
	<title>Re:Could be worse</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1247342040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A judge can then choose to ban the user from the Internet, fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP), or hand over a two-year prison sentence.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm assuming a judge will also have the choice of NOT punishing the victim?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A judge can then choose to ban the user from the Internet , fine him or her 300,000 ( according to the AFP ) , or hand over a two-year prison sentence.I 'm assuming a judge will also have the choice of NOT punishing the victim ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A judge can then choose to ban the user from the Internet, fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP), or hand over a two-year prison sentence.I'm assuming a judge will also have the choice of NOT punishing the victim?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28670491</id>
	<title>Re:A war of attrition...</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1247398920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love a law that allows you to punch a politician if you believe he is doing shit. I would vote for anyone that proposes that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love a law that allows you to punch a politician if you believe he is doing shit .
I would vote for anyone that proposes that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love a law that allows you to punch a politician if you believe he is doing shit.
I would vote for anyone that proposes that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666941</id>
	<title>Re:The court gets all of 3 options, right?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247409000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>or (logical OR, not XOR)</p></div><p>I recommend using "and/or" in that place.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>you need to install a (today inexistant) HADOPI-certified spyware (read network packet scanning, email reading spyware) on your - Windows - computer. This will magically make you not liable of this part of the law</p></div><p>So it's the classical scheme, that churches also use to make everyone obey them. But in this case, it goes like this:<br>Everyone sooner or later will "break" that "law" (making him a sinner),<br>so he will install the spyware (go confess his sins),<br>which will magically free him from punishment (he will not go to hell).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>you're still liable under the DADVSI (counterfeiting) law which can, on another judgment, get you up to 300.000&euro; fine or (logical OR...) 3 years in prison</p></div><p>But you can still get punished. So the freedom from punishment is just an illusion to make you install the spyware.</p><p>Sounds to me like a plot to bring a totalitarian surveillance to everyone, but to keep it legal because people "installed it by themselves" and "it was not forced upon them, so there is no totalitarian censorship and surveillance going on".</p><p>*climbs into  Faraday / mu-metal / nuke-safe  box (aka fridge)*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or ( logical OR , not XOR ) I recommend using " and/or " in that place .
: ) you need to install a ( today inexistant ) HADOPI-certified spyware ( read network packet scanning , email reading spyware ) on your - Windows - computer .
This will magically make you not liable of this part of the lawSo it 's the classical scheme , that churches also use to make everyone obey them .
But in this case , it goes like this : Everyone sooner or later will " break " that " law " ( making him a sinner ) ,so he will install the spyware ( go confess his sins ) ,which will magically free him from punishment ( he will not go to hell ) .you 're still liable under the DADVSI ( counterfeiting ) law which can , on another judgment , get you up to 300.000    fine or ( logical OR... ) 3 years in prisonBut you can still get punished .
So the freedom from punishment is just an illusion to make you install the spyware.Sounds to me like a plot to bring a totalitarian surveillance to everyone , but to keep it legal because people " installed it by themselves " and " it was not forced upon them , so there is no totalitarian censorship and surveillance going on " .
* climbs into Faraday / mu-metal / nuke-safe box ( aka fridge ) *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or (logical OR, not XOR)I recommend using "and/or" in that place.
:)you need to install a (today inexistant) HADOPI-certified spyware (read network packet scanning, email reading spyware) on your - Windows - computer.
This will magically make you not liable of this part of the lawSo it's the classical scheme, that churches also use to make everyone obey them.
But in this case, it goes like this:Everyone sooner or later will "break" that "law" (making him a sinner),so he will install the spyware (go confess his sins),which will magically free him from punishment (he will not go to hell).you're still liable under the DADVSI (counterfeiting) law which can, on another judgment, get you up to 300.000€ fine or (logical OR...) 3 years in prisonBut you can still get punished.
So the freedom from punishment is just an illusion to make you install the spyware.Sounds to me like a plot to bring a totalitarian surveillance to everyone, but to keep it legal because people "installed it by themselves" and "it was not forced upon them, so there is no totalitarian censorship and surveillance going on".
*climbs into  Faraday / mu-metal / nuke-safe  box (aka fridge)*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665837</id>
	<title>Dilemma</title>
	<author>mr100percent</author>
	<datestamp>1247429040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which would you rather have, be banned from the internet for life, or serve two years in prison? I figure nearly all the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers will go for the prison jumpsuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which would you rather have , be banned from the internet for life , or serve two years in prison ?
I figure nearly all the /.ers will go for the prison jumpsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which would you rather have, be banned from the internet for life, or serve two years in prison?
I figure nearly all the /.ers will go for the prison jumpsuit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667273</id>
	<title>Re:The court gets all of 3 options, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247413620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The good news is that the new version of the law is so unconstitutional (email has already been considered private matter and cannot by spied over), that it will be rejected by the constitutional court. So I would dare to say that HADOPI is definitely dead now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The good news is that the new version of the law is so unconstitutional ( email has already been considered private matter and can not by spied over ) , that it will be rejected by the constitutional court .
So I would dare to say that HADOPI is definitely dead now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good news is that the new version of the law is so unconstitutional (email has already been considered private matter and cannot by spied over), that it will be rejected by the constitutional court.
So I would dare to say that HADOPI is definitely dead now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666991</id>
	<title>Re:The court gets all of 3 options, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247409780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy shit, this sounds horrible, seriously.<br>And I thought our (german) government was bad. I recon you wouldn't approve of us invading you guys?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy shit , this sounds horrible , seriously.And I thought our ( german ) government was bad .
I recon you would n't approve of us invading you guys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy shit, this sounds horrible, seriously.And I thought our (german) government was bad.
I recon you wouldn't approve of us invading you guys?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665265</id>
	<title>3 strikes for congress criters taking money?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how no new laws protect us from really BIG crimes - the government and corporate crimes of willful destruction of the planet, waging illegal war, torture, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how no new laws protect us from really BIG crimes - the government and corporate crimes of willful destruction of the planet , waging illegal war , torture , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how no new laws protect us from really BIG crimes - the government and corporate crimes of willful destruction of the planet, waging illegal war, torture, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665465</id>
	<title>Worry about Okinawa rapists instead of Polanski</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247334660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worry more about GI's on the hundreds and hundreds of US bases on foreign soil and that cant be prosecuted by the local authorities.</p><p>THEN worry about Polanski.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worry more about GI 's on the hundreds and hundreds of US bases on foreign soil and that cant be prosecuted by the local authorities.THEN worry about Polanski .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worry more about GI's on the hundreds and hundreds of US bases on foreign soil and that cant be prosecuted by the local authorities.THEN worry about Polanski.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665977</id>
	<title>An astute comment from Le Monde (Google Translate)</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1247432340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How better to sum up in few words the 2 major socio-economic trends, growth sectors of the 21st century: entertainment and security. Navel feed our complacency and our fear of others. All excuses will be good to better enslave us. We will accept, even desire the loss of freedom to better satisfy our desire for pleasure, our narcissism, our brainless. But n'incriminons person, our own consumerist decadence us for this purpose</p></div></blockquote><p>I suppose I could touch up the grammar mistakes made by an automated translator, but the message comes across quite clearly and eloquently as is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How better to sum up in few words the 2 major socio-economic trends , growth sectors of the 21st century : entertainment and security .
Navel feed our complacency and our fear of others .
All excuses will be good to better enslave us .
We will accept , even desire the loss of freedom to better satisfy our desire for pleasure , our narcissism , our brainless .
But n'incriminons person , our own consumerist decadence us for this purposeI suppose I could touch up the grammar mistakes made by an automated translator , but the message comes across quite clearly and eloquently as is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How better to sum up in few words the 2 major socio-economic trends, growth sectors of the 21st century: entertainment and security.
Navel feed our complacency and our fear of others.
All excuses will be good to better enslave us.
We will accept, even desire the loss of freedom to better satisfy our desire for pleasure, our narcissism, our brainless.
But n'incriminons person, our own consumerist decadence us for this purposeI suppose I could touch up the grammar mistakes made by an automated translator, but the message comes across quite clearly and eloquently as is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667017</id>
	<title>Re:Two years prison time. Lovely</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1247410140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more people that are convicted mean more people lose their ( dwindling ) rights for life. That is the REAL goal here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more people that are convicted mean more people lose their ( dwindling ) rights for life .
That is the REAL goal here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more people that are convicted mean more people lose their ( dwindling ) rights for life.
That is the REAL goal here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665309</id>
	<title>Test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, just testing something. Ignore ignore ignore ignore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , just testing something .
Ignore ignore ignore ignore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, just testing something.
Ignore ignore ignore ignore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665647</id>
	<title>Re:Offtopic......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247338500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not just that. I always wonder what an Anonymous Cowardon is. Is it like a simpleton aka Slashdot programmer, or what?</p><p>Have you tried getting \_all\_ comments to show with a single click without being logged in? As in, don't drag a slider and click dozens of times on "More". That would really help on a mobile device.</p><p>But whatever, fucking Slashdot is unusable on anything under 2GHz anyway. Seriously, has anyone tried using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. on Opera mobile? Rendering takes fucking ages.</p><p>QUIT FUCKING AROUND YOU WANNABE SLASHDOT CRACK WHORES AND HIRE SOME PROS TO FIX THE FUCKING SITE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just that .
I always wonder what an Anonymous Cowardon is .
Is it like a simpleton aka Slashdot programmer , or what ? Have you tried getting \ _all \ _ comments to show with a single click without being logged in ?
As in , do n't drag a slider and click dozens of times on " More " .
That would really help on a mobile device.But whatever , fucking Slashdot is unusable on anything under 2GHz anyway .
Seriously , has anyone tried using / .
on Opera mobile ?
Rendering takes fucking ages.QUIT FUCKING AROUND YOU WANNABE SLASHDOT CRACK WHORES AND HIRE SOME PROS TO FIX THE FUCKING SITE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just that.
I always wonder what an Anonymous Cowardon is.
Is it like a simpleton aka Slashdot programmer, or what?Have you tried getting \_all\_ comments to show with a single click without being logged in?
As in, don't drag a slider and click dozens of times on "More".
That would really help on a mobile device.But whatever, fucking Slashdot is unusable on anything under 2GHz anyway.
Seriously, has anyone tried using /.
on Opera mobile?
Rendering takes fucking ages.QUIT FUCKING AROUND YOU WANNABE SLASHDOT CRACK WHORES AND HIRE SOME PROS TO FIX THE FUCKING SITE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664963</id>
	<title>So.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do they have the internet in French prison?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they have the internet in French prison ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they have the internet in French prison?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664985</id>
	<title>Two years prison time.  Lovely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247327160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering if the gambit is being done of pressing for Draconian lesligation repeatedly, so something that is "moderate" ends up getting passed like how the DMCA got passed (original bills would lock someone up for 20 years if they possessed "cracking tools" like a debugger or the strings command).  First, it was three strikes, now prison time.  France doesn't have the percentage of population the US does that is locked up, but all this would do is put non violent people in prison, and remove potential tax revenue (people in prison are not earning taxable income, especially for something that is a white coller issue).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering if the gambit is being done of pressing for Draconian lesligation repeatedly , so something that is " moderate " ends up getting passed like how the DMCA got passed ( original bills would lock someone up for 20 years if they possessed " cracking tools " like a debugger or the strings command ) .
First , it was three strikes , now prison time .
France does n't have the percentage of population the US does that is locked up , but all this would do is put non violent people in prison , and remove potential tax revenue ( people in prison are not earning taxable income , especially for something that is a white coller issue ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering if the gambit is being done of pressing for Draconian lesligation repeatedly, so something that is "moderate" ends up getting passed like how the DMCA got passed (original bills would lock someone up for 20 years if they possessed "cracking tools" like a debugger or the strings command).
First, it was three strikes, now prison time.
France doesn't have the percentage of population the US does that is locked up, but all this would do is put non violent people in prison, and remove potential tax revenue (people in prison are not earning taxable income, especially for something that is a white coller issue).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665333</id>
	<title>Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder why politician who purposefully push -illegal- laws don't end up in jail...</p></div><p>Because they are politicians.  They have root access to the laws.  Therefore, everything that they do is legal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why politician who purposefully push -illegal- laws do n't end up in jail...Because they are politicians .
They have root access to the laws .
Therefore , everything that they do is legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why politician who purposefully push -illegal- laws don't end up in jail...Because they are politicians.
They have root access to the laws.
Therefore, everything that they do is legal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664975</id>
	<title>The court gets all of 3 options, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds to me like saying that the defendant doesn't have the option of defending the charge might get it torn up, but I know nothing up French law...  I know remarkably little about US law, either, since IANAL.</p><p>Since there is no article linked in the summary, how long before someone links one in?</p><p>Cheers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds to me like saying that the defendant does n't have the option of defending the charge might get it torn up , but I know nothing up French law... I know remarkably little about US law , either , since IANAL.Since there is no article linked in the summary , how long before someone links one in ? Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds to me like saying that the defendant doesn't have the option of defending the charge might get it torn up, but I know nothing up French law...  I know remarkably little about US law, either, since IANAL.Since there is no article linked in the summary, how long before someone links one in?Cheers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666677</id>
	<title>Re:The court gets all of 3 options, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247404080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For the smart among you all, you'd have already noticed that everything is trigger by just one thing: an IP on a p2p network. The IP. Something absolutely, positively unfalsifiable, that can't be spoofed. Right?"</p><p>And because an IP is so secure, I guess the HADOPI commission or any other French agency involved in enforcement of this law will have quite a puzzle when a surprising number of IPs that are sharing copyrighted materials turn out to be from their own network domains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For the smart among you all , you 'd have already noticed that everything is trigger by just one thing : an IP on a p2p network .
The IP .
Something absolutely , positively unfalsifiable , that ca n't be spoofed .
Right ? " And because an IP is so secure , I guess the HADOPI commission or any other French agency involved in enforcement of this law will have quite a puzzle when a surprising number of IPs that are sharing copyrighted materials turn out to be from their own network domains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For the smart among you all, you'd have already noticed that everything is trigger by just one thing: an IP on a p2p network.
The IP.
Something absolutely, positively unfalsifiable, that can't be spoofed.
Right?"And because an IP is so secure, I guess the HADOPI commission or any other French agency involved in enforcement of this law will have quite a puzzle when a surprising number of IPs that are sharing copyrighted materials turn out to be from their own network domains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665603</id>
	<title>Re:No due process, just a rubber stamp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247337720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here I sit thinking the US legislature is kinda like an elementary school teacher that's been fucking all the students in his class, and along comes your post about how your kid's elementary school teach has been fucking all his students *and* he's got crabs.</p><p>It makes me feel ever-so-slightly better about our own legislature, in a nauseatingly sad way.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here I sit thinking the US legislature is kinda like an elementary school teacher that 's been fucking all the students in his class , and along comes your post about how your kid 's elementary school teach has been fucking all his students * and * he 's got crabs.It makes me feel ever-so-slightly better about our own legislature , in a nauseatingly sad way.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here I sit thinking the US legislature is kinda like an elementary school teacher that's been fucking all the students in his class, and along comes your post about how your kid's elementary school teach has been fucking all his students *and* he's got crabs.It makes me feel ever-so-slightly better about our own legislature, in a nauseatingly sad way.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28670447</id>
	<title>Re:The court gets all of 3 options, right?</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1247398620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I love being french those days...</p></div><p>I understand you man. I am a french currently working in the US and applying for a academic position back there. And I am really considering not coming back. Sure the US is not the ideal country I would like to live in, but I start wondering I could prefer to live in America than in Gattaca-BePoorAndDontComplain^wFrance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love being french those days...I understand you man .
I am a french currently working in the US and applying for a academic position back there .
And I am really considering not coming back .
Sure the US is not the ideal country I would like to live in , but I start wondering I could prefer to live in America than in Gattaca-BePoorAndDontComplain ^ wFrance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love being french those days...I understand you man.
I am a french currently working in the US and applying for a academic position back there.
And I am really considering not coming back.
Sure the US is not the ideal country I would like to live in, but I start wondering I could prefer to live in America than in Gattaca-BePoorAndDontComplain^wFrance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28696655</id>
	<title>Re:So.</title>
	<author>CommanderIsm</author>
	<datestamp>1247567460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>surreneder monkey's the french

let them eat snails</htmltext>
<tokenext>surreneder monkey 's the french let them eat snails</tokentext>
<sentencetext>surreneder monkey's the french

let them eat snails</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665043</id>
	<title>Un, Deux, Trois........Zoot Alors!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247328060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As Robin Williams said in a great comedy routine,

"So There! You Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys!"

Or Monty Python's

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries"

Well at least they are willing to put up with our <b> <i>merde.</i></b></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Robin Williams said in a great comedy routine , " So There !
You Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys !
" Or Monty Python 's " Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries " Well at least they are willing to put up with our merde .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Robin Williams said in a great comedy routine,

"So There!
You Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys!
"

Or Monty Python's

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries"

Well at least they are willing to put up with our  merde.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665509</id>
	<title>3 strikes law for unpassed laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if they shouldnt work on a 3 strikes law for the executive office where every time they resend the same law for vote, they have a gradual disconnection of powers to prevent abuse... that way way we'd do away with frivolous passing of laws, wasting tons of debate time in the parliament, where the whole country's legislative body is mobilized just so that a bunch of crying failing record industry stop crying wolf... especially when their apetite is not helping creativity (the original goal of copyright) because authors will continue to publish whatever the laws... and they stop increasing penalties for hypothetical loss of revenues when taxes already exist on empty media... if nothing is done, it'll be more easy to get away with murder than to download a song.</p><p>Seriously something is wrong with the system. Maybe the anti trust laws should be ammended to prevent continuous abuse from record labels on systems worldwide. Among deceptive practices that should be punished..<br>1) rootkits<br>2) region locking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... damn it if I buy a cd, I should be able to play it any way I want<br>3) RIAA trials - justice system flooding, racketeering like practices, deception, borderline illegal detective work , manipulation of laws, waste of public/ defendant ressource, unfair trials<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>4) Law keeps changing, increasingly detrimental to consumers<br>5) Copyright laws keep getting extended... the original idea of 10 years was good... but damn it, life + 70... wtf? if someone makes a hit which derives continuous profit 50 years after... they have no incentive to keep creating.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they shouldnt work on a 3 strikes law for the executive office where every time they resend the same law for vote , they have a gradual disconnection of powers to prevent abuse... that way way we 'd do away with frivolous passing of laws , wasting tons of debate time in the parliament , where the whole country 's legislative body is mobilized just so that a bunch of crying failing record industry stop crying wolf... especially when their apetite is not helping creativity ( the original goal of copyright ) because authors will continue to publish whatever the laws... and they stop increasing penalties for hypothetical loss of revenues when taxes already exist on empty media... if nothing is done , it 'll be more easy to get away with murder than to download a song.Seriously something is wrong with the system .
Maybe the anti trust laws should be ammended to prevent continuous abuse from record labels on systems worldwide .
Among deceptive practices that should be punished..1 ) rootkits2 ) region locking ... damn it if I buy a cd , I should be able to play it any way I want3 ) RIAA trials - justice system flooding , racketeering like practices , deception , borderline illegal detective work , manipulation of laws , waste of public/ defendant ressource , unfair trials ....4 ) Law keeps changing , increasingly detrimental to consumers5 ) Copyright laws keep getting extended... the original idea of 10 years was good... but damn it , life + 70... wtf ? if someone makes a hit which derives continuous profit 50 years after... they have no incentive to keep creating .
... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they shouldnt work on a 3 strikes law for the executive office where every time they resend the same law for vote, they have a gradual disconnection of powers to prevent abuse... that way way we'd do away with frivolous passing of laws, wasting tons of debate time in the parliament, where the whole country's legislative body is mobilized just so that a bunch of crying failing record industry stop crying wolf... especially when their apetite is not helping creativity (the original goal of copyright) because authors will continue to publish whatever the laws... and they stop increasing penalties for hypothetical loss of revenues when taxes already exist on empty media... if nothing is done, it'll be more easy to get away with murder than to download a song.Seriously something is wrong with the system.
Maybe the anti trust laws should be ammended to prevent continuous abuse from record labels on systems worldwide.
Among deceptive practices that should be punished..1) rootkits2) region locking ... damn it if I buy a cd, I should be able to play it any way I want3) RIAA trials - justice system flooding, racketeering like practices, deception, borderline illegal detective work , manipulation of laws, waste of public/ defendant ressource, unfair trials ....4) Law keeps changing, increasingly detrimental to consumers5) Copyright laws keep getting extended... the original idea of 10 years was good... but damn it, life + 70... wtf? if someone makes a hit which derives continuous profit 50 years after... they have no incentive to keep creating.
....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666321</id>
	<title>Re:Could be worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247397420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's much worse now.</p><p>Some EFF'esque group (quadrature de something, forgot what it was, someone help me out here) calculated that a judge would have about 5 minutes, tops, to read the accusation, ponder it and come to a verdict. I'm pretty sure they're already cutting the rubber stamps.</p><p>And unlike an ISP, a judge can actually send you to jail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's much worse now.Some EFF'esque group ( quadrature de something , forgot what it was , someone help me out here ) calculated that a judge would have about 5 minutes , tops , to read the accusation , ponder it and come to a verdict .
I 'm pretty sure they 're already cutting the rubber stamps.And unlike an ISP , a judge can actually send you to jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's much worse now.Some EFF'esque group (quadrature de something, forgot what it was, someone help me out here) calculated that a judge would have about 5 minutes, tops, to read the accusation, ponder it and come to a verdict.
I'm pretty sure they're already cutting the rubber stamps.And unlike an ISP, a judge can actually send you to jail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28670695</id>
	<title>Re:No due process, just a rubber stamp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247400780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>60,000 Reichsmarks, oops, I mean Euros, is what this person pirating copyrighted works costs the People's community during his lifetime. Comrade, that is your money too. The new Aktion T4 program will solve this.<br>You're welcome<br>The new NSDAP<br>-<br>No (real) due process. Just some (so called) expert (being told how) making quick decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>60,000 Reichsmarks , oops , I mean Euros , is what this person pirating copyrighted works costs the People 's community during his lifetime .
Comrade , that is your money too .
The new Aktion T4 program will solve this.You 're welcomeThe new NSDAP-No ( real ) due process .
Just some ( so called ) expert ( being told how ) making quick decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>60,000 Reichsmarks, oops, I mean Euros, is what this person pirating copyrighted works costs the People's community during his lifetime.
Comrade, that is your money too.
The new Aktion T4 program will solve this.You're welcomeThe new NSDAP-No (real) due process.
Just some (so called) expert (being told how) making quick decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28672055</id>
	<title>Re:3 strikes law for unpassed laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247413800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I refer you to the *classified* study, where it was found that dead artists were 50\% more creative after their death after the passing of the life + 70 law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I refer you to the * classified * study , where it was found that dead artists were 50 \ % more creative after their death after the passing of the life + 70 law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refer you to the *classified* study, where it was found that dead artists were 50\% more creative after their death after the passing of the life + 70 law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665831</id>
	<title>Re:No due process, just a rubber stamp</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1247428800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it fails this time they will probably try to change the constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it fails this time they will probably try to change the constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it fails this time they will probably try to change the constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665209</id>
	<title>Would be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247330820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be the ultimate ban hammer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be the ultimate ban hammer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be the ultimate ban hammer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28670695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28672055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28696655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28672701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28670491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28670447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28669957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_0111247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28696655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28672055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28672701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28664975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28670447
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28668013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28667273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28670491
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665603
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28669957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28670695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28666217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_0111247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_0111247.28665465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
