<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_16_1748235</id>
	<title>RIAA Loses Bid To Keep Revenues Secret</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247769780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">NewYorkCountryLawyer</a> writes <i>"The RIAA's <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/10/2219208&amp;tid=332">motion to keep secret the record companies' 1999-to-date revenues</a> for the copyrighted song files at the heart of the case <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#4339289599624797949">has been denied</a>, in the Boston case scheduled for trial July 27th, <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=SONY\_v\_Tenenbaum">SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum</a>. The Judge had previously <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#4492517087543183690">ordered the plaintiff record companies</a> to produce a summary of the 1999-to-date revenues for the recordings, broken down into physical and digital sales. On the day the summary was due to be produced, instead of producing it, they produced a 'protective order motion' asking the Judge to rule that the information would have to be kept secret. The Judge rejected that motion: 'the Court does not comprehend how disclosure would impair the Plaintiffs' competitive business prospects when three of the four biggest record labels in the world &mdash; Warner Bros. Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and UMG Recording, Inc. &mdash; are participating jointly in this lawsuit and, presumably, would have joint access to this information.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " The RIAA 's motion to keep secret the record companies ' 1999-to-date revenues for the copyrighted song files at the heart of the case has been denied , in the Boston case scheduled for trial July 27th , SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. The Judge had previously ordered the plaintiff record companies to produce a summary of the 1999-to-date revenues for the recordings , broken down into physical and digital sales .
On the day the summary was due to be produced , instead of producing it , they produced a 'protective order motion ' asking the Judge to rule that the information would have to be kept secret .
The Judge rejected that motion : 'the Court does not comprehend how disclosure would impair the Plaintiffs ' competitive business prospects when three of the four biggest record labels in the world    Warner Bros. Records , Sony BMG Music Entertainment , and UMG Recording , Inc.    are participating jointly in this lawsuit and , presumably , would have joint access to this information .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's motion to keep secret the record companies' 1999-to-date revenues for the copyrighted song files at the heart of the case has been denied, in the Boston case scheduled for trial July 27th, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. The Judge had previously ordered the plaintiff record companies to produce a summary of the 1999-to-date revenues for the recordings, broken down into physical and digital sales.
On the day the summary was due to be produced, instead of producing it, they produced a 'protective order motion' asking the Judge to rule that the information would have to be kept secret.
The Judge rejected that motion: 'the Court does not comprehend how disclosure would impair the Plaintiffs' competitive business prospects when three of the four biggest record labels in the world — Warner Bros. Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and UMG Recording, Inc. — are participating jointly in this lawsuit and, presumably, would have joint access to this information.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28737525</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1247842620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The decline in physical sales correlates perfectly to the increase in digital sales?</p></div><p>That's exactly the problem. Digital sales should be exponentially higher!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The decline in physical sales correlates perfectly to the increase in digital sales ? That 's exactly the problem .
Digital sales should be exponentially higher !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The decline in physical sales correlates perfectly to the increase in digital sales?That's exactly the problem.
Digital sales should be exponentially higher!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720755</id>
	<title>Not only that ...</title>
	<author>taniwha</author>
	<datestamp>1247773800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>because music copyright usually results in a monopoly situation there is not competition - no one else is publishing the same track in competition to them, so the information is not commercially sensitive</htmltext>
<tokenext>because music copyright usually results in a monopoly situation there is not competition - no one else is publishing the same track in competition to them , so the information is not commercially sensitive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because music copyright usually results in a monopoly situation there is not competition - no one else is publishing the same track in competition to them, so the information is not commercially sensitive</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722125</id>
	<title>Re:Come on Ray!</title>
	<author>necrodeep</author>
	<datestamp>1247736240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice! Except suddenly the defense lawyer for every lawsuit that RIAA brings up will be requesting that information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice !
Except suddenly the defense lawyer for every lawsuit that RIAA brings up will be requesting that information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice!
Except suddenly the defense lawyer for every lawsuit that RIAA brings up will be requesting that information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722075</id>
	<title>Re:Come on Ray!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247736060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RIAA Client Lawyer 1: Umm guys.... if the IRS sees our information we are going to get nailed for Tax Evasion<br>RIAA Client Lawyer 2: So what do we do?<br>RIAA Client Lawyer 3: Umm..... sue the judge?<br>RIAA Lawyer: We could drop the lawsuit...</p><p>All 3 RIAA Client Lawyers: Ha! Good one Stan!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA Client Lawyer 1 : Umm guys.... if the IRS sees our information we are going to get nailed for Tax EvasionRIAA Client Lawyer 2 : So what do we do ? RIAA Client Lawyer 3 : Umm..... sue the judge ? RIAA Lawyer : We could drop the lawsuit...All 3 RIAA Client Lawyers : Ha !
Good one Stan !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA Client Lawyer 1: Umm guys.... if the IRS sees our information we are going to get nailed for Tax EvasionRIAA Client Lawyer 2: So what do we do?RIAA Client Lawyer 3: Umm..... sue the judge?RIAA Lawyer: We could drop the lawsuit...All 3 RIAA Client Lawyers: Ha!
Good one Stan!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721693</id>
	<title>Re:cracks in the dam</title>
	<author>lfp.turk</author>
	<datestamp>1247777700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a similar site for movies as well?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a similar site for movies as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a similar site for movies as well?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721095</id>
	<title>I wonder what they are hiding</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1247775300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If their sales/profits are low, then they can claim the illegal copying is to blame.  If their sales/profits are high, then they claim it would be even higher without the copying.
<p>
The only issue could be that they are not consistent with regards to their demands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If their sales/profits are low , then they can claim the illegal copying is to blame .
If their sales/profits are high , then they claim it would be even higher without the copying .
The only issue could be that they are not consistent with regards to their demands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If their sales/profits are low, then they can claim the illegal copying is to blame.
If their sales/profits are high, then they claim it would be even higher without the copying.
The only issue could be that they are not consistent with regards to their demands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28724971</id>
	<title>Statutory vs actual damages</title>
	<author>SonicSpike</author>
	<datestamp>1247751420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This probably has to do with statutory vs actual damages. This is a provision in current copyright law. Often times damages are awarded not on statutory damages, but actual damages. Viewing the income statement for this artist will help put this into perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This probably has to do with statutory vs actual damages .
This is a provision in current copyright law .
Often times damages are awarded not on statutory damages , but actual damages .
Viewing the income statement for this artist will help put this into perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This probably has to do with statutory vs actual damages.
This is a provision in current copyright law.
Often times damages are awarded not on statutory damages, but actual damages.
Viewing the income statement for this artist will help put this into perspective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721935</id>
	<title>Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247735400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way most things work in court is that your <em>response</em> is due based on the order from the judge.  If you are ordered to provide tax information by 7/31, you have a number of options.  Only one of them is actually providing that information.  You can also respond by challenging the order, requesting a limitation on the order, showing cause why you can't comply with the order, and depending on the situation, other options.</p><p>The deadline is the due date for the responsive filing.  As long as the response isn't completely devoid of rationality or some support, the court will review the response and then either adjust the original order or respond by saying, "nice try, but now do what I said".  It's not contempt to push back in civil litigation unless you're doing it solely for the sake of wasting time or money.</p><p>In this case, because a protective order <em>was</em> issued, it obviously wasn't devoid of a real issue.</p><p>Now, sometimes, an order is an order and the <em>only</em> permitted responses are (a) compliance or (b) a request for more time to comply (which may or may not be granted, especially if dropped on the court at the last minute).  This is rarely the case.</p><p>Moreover, the summary is again biased and sensationalized, part of a pattern that shows increasingly unprofessional conduct on the part of the submitter.  The RIAA offered a proposed order that was greater in scope than what they had argued for.  Had the judge and her clerks read only the moving papers and then just signed the order, the RIAA would have had that order amended upon discovery of the inconsistency.  The RIAA actually got the protective order it had argued for--it just didn't get the overbroad proposal they submitted.</p><p>You could automatically bounce back to "the RIAA is evil and incompetent", which no one would disagree with, but there's almost no chance that this would have ever worked--it's not like the judge is powerless upon discovery of the problem, which is almost inevitable unless opposing counsel is <em>beyond</em> incompetent, and attempting to slip an expanded order in intentionally opens them up to all kinds of sanctions.  The thing is, you rarely get <em>more</em> than what you ask in a proposed order attached to a motion--so it's not uncommon to "shoot for the moon" and then the court writes a narrower order based on how much it's willing to give you.  In most cases, it's not a plot.  It's just the way the game is played.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way most things work in court is that your response is due based on the order from the judge .
If you are ordered to provide tax information by 7/31 , you have a number of options .
Only one of them is actually providing that information .
You can also respond by challenging the order , requesting a limitation on the order , showing cause why you ca n't comply with the order , and depending on the situation , other options.The deadline is the due date for the responsive filing .
As long as the response is n't completely devoid of rationality or some support , the court will review the response and then either adjust the original order or respond by saying , " nice try , but now do what I said " .
It 's not contempt to push back in civil litigation unless you 're doing it solely for the sake of wasting time or money.In this case , because a protective order was issued , it obviously was n't devoid of a real issue.Now , sometimes , an order is an order and the only permitted responses are ( a ) compliance or ( b ) a request for more time to comply ( which may or may not be granted , especially if dropped on the court at the last minute ) .
This is rarely the case.Moreover , the summary is again biased and sensationalized , part of a pattern that shows increasingly unprofessional conduct on the part of the submitter .
The RIAA offered a proposed order that was greater in scope than what they had argued for .
Had the judge and her clerks read only the moving papers and then just signed the order , the RIAA would have had that order amended upon discovery of the inconsistency .
The RIAA actually got the protective order it had argued for--it just did n't get the overbroad proposal they submitted.You could automatically bounce back to " the RIAA is evil and incompetent " , which no one would disagree with , but there 's almost no chance that this would have ever worked--it 's not like the judge is powerless upon discovery of the problem , which is almost inevitable unless opposing counsel is beyond incompetent , and attempting to slip an expanded order in intentionally opens them up to all kinds of sanctions .
The thing is , you rarely get more than what you ask in a proposed order attached to a motion--so it 's not uncommon to " shoot for the moon " and then the court writes a narrower order based on how much it 's willing to give you .
In most cases , it 's not a plot .
It 's just the way the game is played .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way most things work in court is that your response is due based on the order from the judge.
If you are ordered to provide tax information by 7/31, you have a number of options.
Only one of them is actually providing that information.
You can also respond by challenging the order, requesting a limitation on the order, showing cause why you can't comply with the order, and depending on the situation, other options.The deadline is the due date for the responsive filing.
As long as the response isn't completely devoid of rationality or some support, the court will review the response and then either adjust the original order or respond by saying, "nice try, but now do what I said".
It's not contempt to push back in civil litigation unless you're doing it solely for the sake of wasting time or money.In this case, because a protective order was issued, it obviously wasn't devoid of a real issue.Now, sometimes, an order is an order and the only permitted responses are (a) compliance or (b) a request for more time to comply (which may or may not be granted, especially if dropped on the court at the last minute).
This is rarely the case.Moreover, the summary is again biased and sensationalized, part of a pattern that shows increasingly unprofessional conduct on the part of the submitter.
The RIAA offered a proposed order that was greater in scope than what they had argued for.
Had the judge and her clerks read only the moving papers and then just signed the order, the RIAA would have had that order amended upon discovery of the inconsistency.
The RIAA actually got the protective order it had argued for--it just didn't get the overbroad proposal they submitted.You could automatically bounce back to "the RIAA is evil and incompetent", which no one would disagree with, but there's almost no chance that this would have ever worked--it's not like the judge is powerless upon discovery of the problem, which is almost inevitable unless opposing counsel is beyond incompetent, and attempting to slip an expanded order in intentionally opens them up to all kinds of sanctions.
The thing is, you rarely get more than what you ask in a proposed order attached to a motion--so it's not uncommon to "shoot for the moon" and then the court writes a narrower order based on how much it's willing to give you.
In most cases, it's not a plot.
It's just the way the game is played.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725235</id>
	<title>Re:But Sir</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1247753700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because the fraction has nothing at all to do with what constitutes the fair use of a copyrighted item.  It may influence the decision in a particular case, but it has nothing to do with the definition itself.  There are many cases where the entire copy of a work can be distributed and it would be considered a fair use.  In the case of parody, 95\% of the work may be a direct copy of the original, but parody is squarely in the realm of fair use.  In the case of excerpts from something like a book, 1\% is pushing the limit.  Magazine or news paper article excerpts you could see something in the 20\% range and still be reasonable and fair.</p><p>In the case of distributed file sharing, this is one area where I think it would be more likely that they would completely ignore the actual amount of data you shared to each individual, and rather focus on how many people you intended to share the file to.  If sharing a single 500kb chunk is deemed unfair use of copyright, people sharing copyrighted material could be in for a world of hurt.</p><p>Again, it's not the fraction that matters, it's whether or not using that fraction is fair.  If distributing a chunk of copyrighted material for the sole purpose of helping someone else get a copy of that copyrighted piece is deemed unfair, you could potentially be considered violating for sharing a single byte, because the size won't matter in the slightest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because the fraction has nothing at all to do with what constitutes the fair use of a copyrighted item .
It may influence the decision in a particular case , but it has nothing to do with the definition itself .
There are many cases where the entire copy of a work can be distributed and it would be considered a fair use .
In the case of parody , 95 \ % of the work may be a direct copy of the original , but parody is squarely in the realm of fair use .
In the case of excerpts from something like a book , 1 \ % is pushing the limit .
Magazine or news paper article excerpts you could see something in the 20 \ % range and still be reasonable and fair.In the case of distributed file sharing , this is one area where I think it would be more likely that they would completely ignore the actual amount of data you shared to each individual , and rather focus on how many people you intended to share the file to .
If sharing a single 500kb chunk is deemed unfair use of copyright , people sharing copyrighted material could be in for a world of hurt.Again , it 's not the fraction that matters , it 's whether or not using that fraction is fair .
If distributing a chunk of copyrighted material for the sole purpose of helping someone else get a copy of that copyrighted piece is deemed unfair , you could potentially be considered violating for sharing a single byte , because the size wo n't matter in the slightest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because the fraction has nothing at all to do with what constitutes the fair use of a copyrighted item.
It may influence the decision in a particular case, but it has nothing to do with the definition itself.
There are many cases where the entire copy of a work can be distributed and it would be considered a fair use.
In the case of parody, 95\% of the work may be a direct copy of the original, but parody is squarely in the realm of fair use.
In the case of excerpts from something like a book, 1\% is pushing the limit.
Magazine or news paper article excerpts you could see something in the 20\% range and still be reasonable and fair.In the case of distributed file sharing, this is one area where I think it would be more likely that they would completely ignore the actual amount of data you shared to each individual, and rather focus on how many people you intended to share the file to.
If sharing a single 500kb chunk is deemed unfair use of copyright, people sharing copyrighted material could be in for a world of hurt.Again, it's not the fraction that matters, it's whether or not using that fraction is fair.
If distributing a chunk of copyrighted material for the sole purpose of helping someone else get a copy of that copyrighted piece is deemed unfair, you could potentially be considered violating for sharing a single byte, because the size won't matter in the slightest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745</id>
	<title>I wonder if ...</title>
	<author>TomTraynor</author>
	<datestamp>1247773800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if they told the artists one set of numbers and need more time to make sure what they give to the court matches that set.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they told the artists one set of numbers and need more time to make sure what they give to the court matches that set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they told the artists one set of numbers and need more time to make sure what they give to the court matches that set.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721335</id>
	<title>Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247776320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd think this is kind of up to the judge and how they feel that day?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd think this is kind of up to the judge and how they feel that day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd think this is kind of up to the judge and how they feel that day?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375</id>
	<title>Re:But Sir</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1247776500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>MAFIAA: You have to take into account everyone that downloaded them.</p><p>JUDGE: Ok so lets say 10 people downloaded each one, that's about so that's about $4800 right?</p></div><p>By definition, the average participant in a peer sharing network uploads one copy.  There's no way around that.  If the actual number of uploads is unknown, the only remotely reasonable assumption for damage calculations is 1.0000000000000000000000000.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MAFIAA : You have to take into account everyone that downloaded them.JUDGE : Ok so lets say 10 people downloaded each one , that 's about so that 's about $ 4800 right ? By definition , the average participant in a peer sharing network uploads one copy .
There 's no way around that .
If the actual number of uploads is unknown , the only remotely reasonable assumption for damage calculations is 1.0000000000000000000000000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MAFIAA: You have to take into account everyone that downloaded them.JUDGE: Ok so lets say 10 people downloaded each one, that's about so that's about $4800 right?By definition, the average participant in a peer sharing network uploads one copy.
There's no way around that.
If the actual number of uploads is unknown, the only remotely reasonable assumption for damage calculations is 1.0000000000000000000000000.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720721</id>
	<title>Show me...</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1247773680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Show me the money!<br>Show me the money!<br>Show me the money!<br>Show me the money!<br>Show me the money!<br>Show me the money!</p><p>Note: Stupid postercomment compression filter can bite my shiny metal ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Show me the money ! Show me the money ! Show me the money ! Show me the money ! Show me the money ! Show me the money ! Note : Stupid postercomment compression filter can bite my shiny metal ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show me the money!Show me the money!Show me the money!Show me the money!Show me the money!Show me the money!Note: Stupid postercomment compression filter can bite my shiny metal ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722821</id>
	<title>There is no reason to be quiet about that, ...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247739240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...when you publicly state that you want the 3.5\% that the artists get, to get down to 2.8\%, while still expecting them to pay the studio from that.</p><p>Because that is exactly what they tried to do.</p><p>Those that they told another set of numbers are us. To justify the "piracy" inquisition. (Occam's razor!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...when you publicly state that you want the 3.5 \ % that the artists get , to get down to 2.8 \ % , while still expecting them to pay the studio from that.Because that is exactly what they tried to do.Those that they told another set of numbers are us .
To justify the " piracy " inquisition .
( Occam 's razor !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when you publicly state that you want the 3.5\% that the artists get, to get down to 2.8\%, while still expecting them to pay the studio from that.Because that is exactly what they tried to do.Those that they told another set of numbers are us.
To justify the "piracy" inquisition.
(Occam's razor!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28724471</id>
	<title>Dang!</title>
	<author>flameproof</author>
	<datestamp>1247747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I'm glad Bush is gone!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'm glad Bush is gone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'm glad Bush is gone!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723185</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder if ...</title>
	<author>s0litaire</author>
	<datestamp>1247740800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RIAA probably have every accountant withing a 400mile radius with questionable ethics pouring over the books trying to hide every 0.00c they can...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA probably have every accountant withing a 400mile radius with questionable ethics pouring over the books trying to hide every 0.00c they can.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA probably have every accountant withing a 400mile radius with questionable ethics pouring over the books trying to hide every 0.00c they can...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28729289</id>
	<title>about time!</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1247843220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Awesome, now they have to prove where they come up with a supposed 12 million $ lawsuit against a grandmother for downloading songs etc...this will definitely set a precedent and send a clear message to them for future trials!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome , now they have to prove where they come up with a supposed 12 million $ lawsuit against a grandmother for downloading songs etc...this will definitely set a precedent and send a clear message to them for future trials !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome, now they have to prove where they come up with a supposed 12 million $ lawsuit against a grandmother for downloading songs etc...this will definitely set a precedent and send a clear message to them for future trials!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28724153</id>
	<title>Re:Ain't that obvious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247745240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will also show that when they say downloading is <i>stealing from the artists</i> they are trying to protect they will in fact prove it is them who are stealing from the artists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will also show that when they say downloading is stealing from the artists they are trying to protect they will in fact prove it is them who are stealing from the artists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will also show that when they say downloading is stealing from the artists they are trying to protect they will in fact prove it is them who are stealing from the artists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720787</id>
	<title>Ain't that obvious?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247773920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'd have to show what they actually gain from "honest" business and have that compared to their extortion schemes. It could even show that the "claimed losses" exceed what one person could possibly cause in damages.</p><p>And that in turn could mean that their insane claims (and the verdicts that ensued) could be up for review, they could end up with far more sane sentences and that in turn would make the whole "shock and awe" deterrent a joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'd have to show what they actually gain from " honest " business and have that compared to their extortion schemes .
It could even show that the " claimed losses " exceed what one person could possibly cause in damages.And that in turn could mean that their insane claims ( and the verdicts that ensued ) could be up for review , they could end up with far more sane sentences and that in turn would make the whole " shock and awe " deterrent a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'd have to show what they actually gain from "honest" business and have that compared to their extortion schemes.
It could even show that the "claimed losses" exceed what one person could possibly cause in damages.And that in turn could mean that their insane claims (and the verdicts that ensued) could be up for review, they could end up with far more sane sentences and that in turn would make the whole "shock and awe" deterrent a joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721035</id>
	<title>What is worse</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1247775000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now the artists will find out exactly how much the record companies are skimming off of them and force the record companies to pay up!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the artists will find out exactly how much the record companies are skimming off of them and force the record companies to pay up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the artists will find out exactly how much the record companies are skimming off of them and force the record companies to pay up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723029</id>
	<title>Re:I object!</title>
	<author>Chabo</author>
	<datestamp>1247740140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, from Bart Simpson's trial for the murder of Principal Skinner:<br>"Your honor, I move that Principal Skinner's entire testimony be stricken from the record."<br>"<strong> <em>DENIED!</em> </strong> Case dismissed."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , from Bart Simpson 's trial for the murder of Principal Skinner : " Your honor , I move that Principal Skinner 's entire testimony be stricken from the record .
" " DENIED !
Case dismissed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, from Bart Simpson's trial for the murder of Principal Skinner:"Your honor, I move that Principal Skinner's entire testimony be stricken from the record.
"" DENIED!
Case dismissed.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725943</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder if ...</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1247762880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder if they told the artists one set of numbers and need more time to make sure what they give to the court matches that set.</p></div><p>Exactly.  They are probably trying to figure out how many music downloads they need to buy in order to get to the number they quoted the artists!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they told the artists one set of numbers and need more time to make sure what they give to the court matches that set.Exactly .
They are probably trying to figure out how many music downloads they need to buy in order to get to the number they quoted the artists !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they told the artists one set of numbers and need more time to make sure what they give to the court matches that set.Exactly.
They are probably trying to figure out how many music downloads they need to buy in order to get to the number they quoted the artists!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721855</id>
	<title>Re:cracks in the dam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247735040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easier than that.  Just buy used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easier than that .
Just buy used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easier than that.
Just buy used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665</id>
	<title>Come on Ray!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247773500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spill the beans already, how much are we talking?<br>
<br>
Anyone down for taking bets?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spill the beans already , how much are we talking ?
Anyone down for taking bets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spill the beans already, how much are we talking?
Anyone down for taking bets?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721237</id>
	<title>Re:Show us the money!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247775900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it does, it might show that the data truly is competitively relevant - and that their main business is being in competition <i>with their own customers</i>.</p><p>It would all make sense then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it does , it might show that the data truly is competitively relevant - and that their main business is being in competition with their own customers.It would all make sense then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it does, it might show that the data truly is competitively relevant - and that their main business is being in competition with their own customers.It would all make sense then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723261</id>
	<title>Re:But Sir</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247741100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One?  I have seen 20-30 people downloading something that could be considered "popular" and "current" at one time.  Compared to 0 people downloading something not so current or popular.</p><p>I think it is probably closer to the truth to say that for "current" and "popular" materials there are hundreds of potential downloaders for every "sharer".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One ?
I have seen 20-30 people downloading something that could be considered " popular " and " current " at one time .
Compared to 0 people downloading something not so current or popular.I think it is probably closer to the truth to say that for " current " and " popular " materials there are hundreds of potential downloaders for every " sharer " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One?
I have seen 20-30 people downloading something that could be considered "popular" and "current" at one time.
Compared to 0 people downloading something not so current or popular.I think it is probably closer to the truth to say that for "current" and "popular" materials there are hundreds of potential downloaders for every "sharer".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721437</id>
	<title>With apologies to Futuristic Sex Robots</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1247776740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck the MPAA</p><p>PC Speaker:<br>fuck the M-P-double-A comin straight out the underground<br>a young pirate got it bad cause I'm down,<br>loadin DVDs like a motherfuckin fiend,<br>bring my camera to the movies and I put em on BT,<br>back all that stolen content up on DVD-ROMs,<br>cause my tip's been piracy since I dropped out my Mom's,<br>and just because I share my MP3s,<br>they got the government comin after me,<br>instead of suin kids why don't you step on up,<br>and release a couple albums that don't completely suck,<br>stop puttin DRM onto audio CDs,<br>that don't make it any harder to steal your MP3s,<br>if I want your shit for free, I ain't gonna have to pay,<br>and all your bullshit is why the fuck I say,<br>hack the Gibson, hack the Gibson,<br>I'm seedin BitTorrents like a digital pimp, son</p><p>Chorus:<br>fuck the M-P-double-A<br>fuck the R-I-double-A<br>fuck the suits behind the BSA<br>and fuck em all for the DMCA</p><p>Recycle Bin:<br>robot pirates, we get our shit for free,<br>parental advisory you'll never fuckin see,<br>been a couple years since I seen an FBI warning,<br>cut it out cause that shit's mad boring,<br>ya'll fuckin dumber than that bitch from bad boys,<br>step to the Bin and it's grandma's sex toys,<br>I'ma just keep fillin up muh drives,<br>the ones that disapear when the lawsuit arrives,<br>all you fuckin suits can suck my balls,<br>when you get done you gonna make some calls,<br>I better see some changes or it's time to fight,<br>you ain't gonna manage my digital rights</p><p>Subrandom:<br>remember when anti-trust was the thing,<br>now you're set up for downloadin Sting,<br>treatin payin customers like criminals,<br>pens filled up with music nerd animals,<br>buyin off senators left and right,<br>my vote doesnt count in this fuckin fight,<br>on the 56k had hundreds of songs,<br>drives partitioned like asses in thongs,<br>now its gigs of illegal content,<br>if I get caught im joinin a convent<br>fuck what you heard, it's all a scam,<br>if they at your door burn em in a van,</p><p>Coaxke:<br>they got dollar signs in their fuckin eyes,<br>with heads in-between politicians thighs,<br>fat checks endorsed by senators that lie,<br>pullin fake dollar losses straight outta the sky,<br>and i don't trust trusted computing,<br>they don't want it around to stop looting,<br>the internet is the only place you're still free,<br>if you disagree, just you wait and see,<br>you wanna lock down the web and throw away the key?<br>well, you better not touch my fuckin technology,<br>so back the fuck off or you're fuckin dead,<br>yellin 1337 on a motherfuckin fed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the MPAAPC Speaker : fuck the M-P-double-A comin straight out the undergrounda young pirate got it bad cause I 'm down,loadin DVDs like a motherfuckin fiend,bring my camera to the movies and I put em on BT,back all that stolen content up on DVD-ROMs,cause my tip 's been piracy since I dropped out my Mom 's,and just because I share my MP3s,they got the government comin after me,instead of suin kids why do n't you step on up,and release a couple albums that do n't completely suck,stop puttin DRM onto audio CDs,that do n't make it any harder to steal your MP3s,if I want your shit for free , I ai n't gon na have to pay,and all your bullshit is why the fuck I say,hack the Gibson , hack the Gibson,I 'm seedin BitTorrents like a digital pimp , sonChorus : fuck the M-P-double-Afuck the R-I-double-Afuck the suits behind the BSAand fuck em all for the DMCARecycle Bin : robot pirates , we get our shit for free,parental advisory you 'll never fuckin see,been a couple years since I seen an FBI warning,cut it out cause that shit 's mad boring,ya 'll fuckin dumber than that bitch from bad boys,step to the Bin and it 's grandma 's sex toys,I'ma just keep fillin up muh drives,the ones that disapear when the lawsuit arrives,all you fuckin suits can suck my balls,when you get done you gon na make some calls,I better see some changes or it 's time to fight,you ai n't gon na manage my digital rightsSubrandom : remember when anti-trust was the thing,now you 're set up for downloadin Sting,treatin payin customers like criminals,pens filled up with music nerd animals,buyin off senators left and right,my vote doesnt count in this fuckin fight,on the 56k had hundreds of songs,drives partitioned like asses in thongs,now its gigs of illegal content,if I get caught im joinin a conventfuck what you heard , it 's all a scam,if they at your door burn em in a van,Coaxke : they got dollar signs in their fuckin eyes,with heads in-between politicians thighs,fat checks endorsed by senators that lie,pullin fake dollar losses straight outta the sky,and i do n't trust trusted computing,they do n't want it around to stop looting,the internet is the only place you 're still free,if you disagree , just you wait and see,you wan na lock down the web and throw away the key ? well , you better not touch my fuckin technology,so back the fuck off or you 're fuckin dead,yellin 1337 on a motherfuckin fed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the MPAAPC Speaker:fuck the M-P-double-A comin straight out the undergrounda young pirate got it bad cause I'm down,loadin DVDs like a motherfuckin fiend,bring my camera to the movies and I put em on BT,back all that stolen content up on DVD-ROMs,cause my tip's been piracy since I dropped out my Mom's,and just because I share my MP3s,they got the government comin after me,instead of suin kids why don't you step on up,and release a couple albums that don't completely suck,stop puttin DRM onto audio CDs,that don't make it any harder to steal your MP3s,if I want your shit for free, I ain't gonna have to pay,and all your bullshit is why the fuck I say,hack the Gibson, hack the Gibson,I'm seedin BitTorrents like a digital pimp, sonChorus:fuck the M-P-double-Afuck the R-I-double-Afuck the suits behind the BSAand fuck em all for the DMCARecycle Bin:robot pirates, we get our shit for free,parental advisory you'll never fuckin see,been a couple years since I seen an FBI warning,cut it out cause that shit's mad boring,ya'll fuckin dumber than that bitch from bad boys,step to the Bin and it's grandma's sex toys,I'ma just keep fillin up muh drives,the ones that disapear when the lawsuit arrives,all you fuckin suits can suck my balls,when you get done you gonna make some calls,I better see some changes or it's time to fight,you ain't gonna manage my digital rightsSubrandom:remember when anti-trust was the thing,now you're set up for downloadin Sting,treatin payin customers like criminals,pens filled up with music nerd animals,buyin off senators left and right,my vote doesnt count in this fuckin fight,on the 56k had hundreds of songs,drives partitioned like asses in thongs,now its gigs of illegal content,if I get caught im joinin a conventfuck what you heard, it's all a scam,if they at your door burn em in a van,Coaxke:they got dollar signs in their fuckin eyes,with heads in-between politicians thighs,fat checks endorsed by senators that lie,pullin fake dollar losses straight outta the sky,and i don't trust trusted computing,they don't want it around to stop looting,the internet is the only place you're still free,if you disagree, just you wait and see,you wanna lock down the web and throw away the key?well, you better not touch my fuckin technology,so back the fuck off or you're fuckin dead,yellin 1337 on a motherfuckin fed</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28729109</id>
	<title>Re:Come on Ray!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247842500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'the Court does not comprehend how disclosure would impair the Plaintiffs' competitive business prospects when three of the four biggest record labels in the world -- Warner Bros. Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and UMG Recording, Inc. -- are participating jointly in this lawsuit and, presumably, would have joint access to this information.'"</i></p><p>The RIAA labels are a cartel and probably an illegal one. Their competetion is the independant labels and unsigned musicians. THEY are the ones they want to keep this secret from.</p><p>Another "secret" thay want kept is that only this monopolistic cartel's music gets airplay (anticompetetive behavior) while the independants only have the internet for getting music into the public's ears, which is the real reason the cartel wants P2P to die and internet radio to be crippled. If I spend $20 on four $5 indie CDs, that's $20 I don't have to buy an RIAA CD. If I never hear any music from those four indie CDs, there's no chance I'll buy them. P2P <b>boosts</b> sales; studies have shown that "pirates" spend more money on music than anyone else.</p><p>Why isn't the DOJ prosecuting this illegal trust? Is it because we have the best legislature and judiciary that money can buy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'the Court does not comprehend how disclosure would impair the Plaintiffs ' competitive business prospects when three of the four biggest record labels in the world -- Warner Bros. Records , Sony BMG Music Entertainment , and UMG Recording , Inc. -- are participating jointly in this lawsuit and , presumably , would have joint access to this information .
' " The RIAA labels are a cartel and probably an illegal one .
Their competetion is the independant labels and unsigned musicians .
THEY are the ones they want to keep this secret from.Another " secret " thay want kept is that only this monopolistic cartel 's music gets airplay ( anticompetetive behavior ) while the independants only have the internet for getting music into the public 's ears , which is the real reason the cartel wants P2P to die and internet radio to be crippled .
If I spend $ 20 on four $ 5 indie CDs , that 's $ 20 I do n't have to buy an RIAA CD .
If I never hear any music from those four indie CDs , there 's no chance I 'll buy them .
P2P boosts sales ; studies have shown that " pirates " spend more money on music than anyone else.Why is n't the DOJ prosecuting this illegal trust ?
Is it because we have the best legislature and judiciary that money can buy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'the Court does not comprehend how disclosure would impair the Plaintiffs' competitive business prospects when three of the four biggest record labels in the world -- Warner Bros. Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and UMG Recording, Inc. -- are participating jointly in this lawsuit and, presumably, would have joint access to this information.
'"The RIAA labels are a cartel and probably an illegal one.
Their competetion is the independant labels and unsigned musicians.
THEY are the ones they want to keep this secret from.Another "secret" thay want kept is that only this monopolistic cartel's music gets airplay (anticompetetive behavior) while the independants only have the internet for getting music into the public's ears, which is the real reason the cartel wants P2P to die and internet radio to be crippled.
If I spend $20 on four $5 indie CDs, that's $20 I don't have to buy an RIAA CD.
If I never hear any music from those four indie CDs, there's no chance I'll buy them.
P2P boosts sales; studies have shown that "pirates" spend more money on music than anyone else.Why isn't the DOJ prosecuting this illegal trust?
Is it because we have the best legislature and judiciary that money can buy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725323</id>
	<title>Re:Come on Ray!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247754480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi everyone, I'm from the RIAA accounting department.</p><p>For those who are skeptical about how that works out:</p><p>Let's say the average CD price is $10.20.</p><p>And let's say it sells 6425 copies per day on average.</p><p>That's $100k per day in CD sales. It should be noted that the amount of additional revenue gained from movie contracts, concert commissions, etc is approximately one day's revenue from CD sales ($100k) * 655.35 units per year. Or in other words, $100m from other external sources.</p><p>Therefore you're looking at approximately $154.2m in lost revenue... per year, after the smaller remaining revenue streams are added in. We've calculated that in 2080 when the copyright period expires (we're hoping to extend this further) we will need to index this amount to 2080 dollars by multiplying it by the 2080 price index of 425. So in terms of 2080 dollars, the total cost per year is $100 BILLION DOLLARS.</p><p>And we haven't even started working out the predicted loss for future profits (the process is so complex we have to outsource it to Visa Debit Processing Services).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi everyone , I 'm from the RIAA accounting department.For those who are skeptical about how that works out : Let 's say the average CD price is $ 10.20.And let 's say it sells 6425 copies per day on average.That 's $ 100k per day in CD sales .
It should be noted that the amount of additional revenue gained from movie contracts , concert commissions , etc is approximately one day 's revenue from CD sales ( $ 100k ) * 655.35 units per year .
Or in other words , $ 100m from other external sources.Therefore you 're looking at approximately $ 154.2m in lost revenue... per year , after the smaller remaining revenue streams are added in .
We 've calculated that in 2080 when the copyright period expires ( we 're hoping to extend this further ) we will need to index this amount to 2080 dollars by multiplying it by the 2080 price index of 425 .
So in terms of 2080 dollars , the total cost per year is $ 100 BILLION DOLLARS.And we have n't even started working out the predicted loss for future profits ( the process is so complex we have to outsource it to Visa Debit Processing Services ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi everyone, I'm from the RIAA accounting department.For those who are skeptical about how that works out:Let's say the average CD price is $10.20.And let's say it sells 6425 copies per day on average.That's $100k per day in CD sales.
It should be noted that the amount of additional revenue gained from movie contracts, concert commissions, etc is approximately one day's revenue from CD sales ($100k) * 655.35 units per year.
Or in other words, $100m from other external sources.Therefore you're looking at approximately $154.2m in lost revenue... per year, after the smaller remaining revenue streams are added in.
We've calculated that in 2080 when the copyright period expires (we're hoping to extend this further) we will need to index this amount to 2080 dollars by multiplying it by the 2080 price index of 425.
So in terms of 2080 dollars, the total cost per year is $100 BILLION DOLLARS.And we haven't even started working out the predicted loss for future profits (the process is so complex we have to outsource it to Visa Debit Processing Services).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723875</id>
	<title>Re:But Sir</title>
	<author>pawnb</author>
	<datestamp>1247743980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>MAFIAA: IT'S NEVER ENOUGH!!! (Rips off the mask to reveal he's infact a tenticle demon!!)</p></div><p>Was that 'n' in tenticle supposed to be an 's'?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MAFIAA : IT 'S NEVER ENOUGH ! ! !
( Rips off the mask to reveal he 's infact a tenticle demon ! !
) Was that 'n ' in tenticle supposed to be an 's ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MAFIAA: IT'S NEVER ENOUGH!!!
(Rips off the mask to reveal he's infact a tenticle demon!!
)Was that 'n' in tenticle supposed to be an 's'?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720765</id>
	<title>I object!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247773860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reede: Your honor, I object!</p><p>Judge: Why?</p><p>Reede: Because it's devastating to my case!</p><p>Judge: Overruled.</p><p>Reede: Good call!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reede : Your honor , I object ! Judge : Why ? Reede : Because it 's devastating to my case ! Judge : Overruled.Reede : Good call !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reede: Your honor, I object!Judge: Why?Reede: Because it's devastating to my case!Judge: Overruled.Reede: Good call!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28727293</id>
	<title>Re:I object!</title>
	<author>qc\_dk</author>
	<datestamp>1247827440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Barrister for the defense: "ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the  prosecution argue, very persuasively, that my client is guilty of arson. You've heard his alibis being discredited. In fact, you've even seen him try to set fire to this court room in which we sit. But, consider this. If you go now and return a verdict of guilty, then I will think that you are all gay. That's right. I will think that each and every one of you, hoo, is a gay!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barrister for the defense : " ladies and gentlemen of the jury , you have heard the prosecution argue , very persuasively , that my client is guilty of arson .
You 've heard his alibis being discredited .
In fact , you 've even seen him try to set fire to this court room in which we sit .
But , consider this .
If you go now and return a verdict of guilty , then I will think that you are all gay .
That 's right .
I will think that each and every one of you , hoo , is a gay !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barrister for the defense: "ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the  prosecution argue, very persuasively, that my client is guilty of arson.
You've heard his alibis being discredited.
In fact, you've even seen him try to set fire to this court room in which we sit.
But, consider this.
If you go now and return a verdict of guilty, then I will think that you are all gay.
That's right.
I will think that each and every one of you, hoo, is a gay!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721223</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247775840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While decreasing CD sales are being caused by increasing digital sales, overall cash is going down. But that's not anybody's fault. People don't want to buy the CD because it's overpriced and they only want the one or two good songs that are hyped on the radio. Why buy the rest of the trash?</p><p>Then add in Wal Mart is running independent music stores out of business and then turning around and only offering a fraction of the selection - the majority of it being the latest hype crap that everyone wants to buy single downloads for.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>In the end, they have to understand that this is the way of the world and they will have to get use to living on a smaller budget. Something they desperately want to avoid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While decreasing CD sales are being caused by increasing digital sales , overall cash is going down .
But that 's not anybody 's fault .
People do n't want to buy the CD because it 's overpriced and they only want the one or two good songs that are hyped on the radio .
Why buy the rest of the trash ? Then add in Wal Mart is running independent music stores out of business and then turning around and only offering a fraction of the selection - the majority of it being the latest hype crap that everyone wants to buy single downloads for .
: ) In the end , they have to understand that this is the way of the world and they will have to get use to living on a smaller budget .
Something they desperately want to avoid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While decreasing CD sales are being caused by increasing digital sales, overall cash is going down.
But that's not anybody's fault.
People don't want to buy the CD because it's overpriced and they only want the one or two good songs that are hyped on the radio.
Why buy the rest of the trash?Then add in Wal Mart is running independent music stores out of business and then turning around and only offering a fraction of the selection - the majority of it being the latest hype crap that everyone wants to buy single downloads for.
:)In the end, they have to understand that this is the way of the world and they will have to get use to living on a smaller budget.
Something they desperately want to avoid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28729929</id>
	<title>Average is meaningless here</title>
	<author>mdmkolbe</author>
	<datestamp>1247845980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter that the average is 1.0 copies sent per person.  If one person sent 1,000,000 copies and 1,000,000 people received one copy each (e.g. through an HTTP server), that one person is still liable for the 1,000,000 copies sent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter that the average is 1.0 copies sent per person .
If one person sent 1,000,000 copies and 1,000,000 people received one copy each ( e.g .
through an HTTP server ) , that one person is still liable for the 1,000,000 copies sent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter that the average is 1.0 copies sent per person.
If one person sent 1,000,000 copies and 1,000,000 people received one copy each (e.g.
through an HTTP server), that one person is still liable for the 1,000,000 copies sent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723437</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder if ...</title>
	<author>Amazing Quantum Man</author>
	<datestamp>1247742000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The classic example is "Coming to America".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The classic example is " Coming to America " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The classic example is "Coming to America".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28726057</id>
	<title>Taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247764680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they end up having to produce their profits, we'll be able to see the proportion of money they make from lawsuits on consumers versus actual sales.  Also, maybe the IRS can see where they've falsified their tax reporting.  In addition, we'll be able to see how little they've actually paid their artists, and how they've given none of their revenues from lawsuits to the artists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they end up having to produce their profits , we 'll be able to see the proportion of money they make from lawsuits on consumers versus actual sales .
Also , maybe the IRS can see where they 've falsified their tax reporting .
In addition , we 'll be able to see how little they 've actually paid their artists , and how they 've given none of their revenues from lawsuits to the artists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they end up having to produce their profits, we'll be able to see the proportion of money they make from lawsuits on consumers versus actual sales.
Also, maybe the IRS can see where they've falsified their tax reporting.
In addition, we'll be able to see how little they've actually paid their artists, and how they've given none of their revenues from lawsuits to the artists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723459</id>
	<title>Re:But Sir</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1247742120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The total amount downloaded (ignoring re-downloads, which are rare) is capped by the number of users interested in that file, N. The initial copy was brought in from elsewhere, so there are at most N-1 copies uploaded via the P2P network. The mean amount uploaded per-user is thus (N-1 copies) / (N users), which is approximately unity.</p><p>A minority of users with faster-than-average upload rates, higher caps, and/or always-on computers do more than their equal share of the uploading, so the median amount uploaded is most likely less than the mean. This does assume that pure "leaching" is uncommon, which is the case with modern P2P networks. (Note that allowing for leaching cuts both ways; it raises the median ratio, but also allows the defendant to argue that they may not have uploaded anything at all.) In the absence of hard data suggesting otherwise it would be reasonable to assume that the median is no greater than the mean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The total amount downloaded ( ignoring re-downloads , which are rare ) is capped by the number of users interested in that file , N. The initial copy was brought in from elsewhere , so there are at most N-1 copies uploaded via the P2P network .
The mean amount uploaded per-user is thus ( N-1 copies ) / ( N users ) , which is approximately unity.A minority of users with faster-than-average upload rates , higher caps , and/or always-on computers do more than their equal share of the uploading , so the median amount uploaded is most likely less than the mean .
This does assume that pure " leaching " is uncommon , which is the case with modern P2P networks .
( Note that allowing for leaching cuts both ways ; it raises the median ratio , but also allows the defendant to argue that they may not have uploaded anything at all .
) In the absence of hard data suggesting otherwise it would be reasonable to assume that the median is no greater than the mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The total amount downloaded (ignoring re-downloads, which are rare) is capped by the number of users interested in that file, N. The initial copy was brought in from elsewhere, so there are at most N-1 copies uploaded via the P2P network.
The mean amount uploaded per-user is thus (N-1 copies) / (N users), which is approximately unity.A minority of users with faster-than-average upload rates, higher caps, and/or always-on computers do more than their equal share of the uploading, so the median amount uploaded is most likely less than the mean.
This does assume that pure "leaching" is uncommon, which is the case with modern P2P networks.
(Note that allowing for leaching cuts both ways; it raises the median ratio, but also allows the defendant to argue that they may not have uploaded anything at all.
) In the absence of hard data suggesting otherwise it would be reasonable to assume that the median is no greater than the mean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28726009</id>
	<title>Repeat after me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247764080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Digital" and "Physical" are not antonyms.</p><p>Or, for the vocabulary-challenged, "Digital" does NOT mean the opposite of "Physical".</p><p>Music CD's are *digital* - music cassettes and vinyl phonograph records were (are) analog.</p><p>"Digital" and "Analog" are antonyms. "Physical" and "Virtual" are antonyms.</p><p>But the term "Digital" is not a correct term to distinguish</p><p>
&nbsp; "distributing a digital representation of analog information (eg, music) by allowing it to be transferred to many individuals via a telecommunications network, and then stored on a medium supplied by each individual",</p><p>from</p><p>
&nbsp; "distributing a digital representation of analog information (.. music) by storing duplicate copies of it on many physical media, and then physically distributing the individual physical mediums to many individuals"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Digital " and " Physical " are not antonyms.Or , for the vocabulary-challenged , " Digital " does NOT mean the opposite of " Physical " .Music CD 's are * digital * - music cassettes and vinyl phonograph records were ( are ) analog .
" Digital " and " Analog " are antonyms .
" Physical " and " Virtual " are antonyms.But the term " Digital " is not a correct term to distinguish   " distributing a digital representation of analog information ( eg , music ) by allowing it to be transferred to many individuals via a telecommunications network , and then stored on a medium supplied by each individual " ,from   " distributing a digital representation of analog information ( .. music ) by storing duplicate copies of it on many physical media , and then physically distributing the individual physical mediums to many individuals "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Digital" and "Physical" are not antonyms.Or, for the vocabulary-challenged, "Digital" does NOT mean the opposite of "Physical".Music CD's are *digital* - music cassettes and vinyl phonograph records were (are) analog.
"Digital" and "Analog" are antonyms.
"Physical" and "Virtual" are antonyms.But the term "Digital" is not a correct term to distinguish
  "distributing a digital representation of analog information (eg, music) by allowing it to be transferred to many individuals via a telecommunications network, and then stored on a medium supplied by each individual",from
  "distributing a digital representation of analog information (.. music) by storing duplicate copies of it on many physical media, and then physically distributing the individual physical mediums to many individuals"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725011</id>
	<title>Upper limit on damages</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1247751780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More to the point, if the produce a number that is less than the value of the settlement that they are requesting, it might make it difficult to justify the damages that they are claiming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , if the produce a number that is less than the value of the settlement that they are requesting , it might make it difficult to justify the damages that they are claiming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, if the produce a number that is less than the value of the settlement that they are requesting, it might make it difficult to justify the damages that they are claiming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721193</id>
	<title>Forcing them to show their hands</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1247775660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This could be the beginnings of an interesting new strategy against the RIAA.  Forcing the RIAA to produce the verifiable truth about various things and to pull their skeletons from their closets and put them on display can likely act as quite a deterrent against RIAA actions.</p><p>Still.  How is the judge taking their failure to produce the data?  Does making a motion instead of producing the data result in an automatic extension somehow?  Is this an unwritten part of due process now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be the beginnings of an interesting new strategy against the RIAA .
Forcing the RIAA to produce the verifiable truth about various things and to pull their skeletons from their closets and put them on display can likely act as quite a deterrent against RIAA actions.Still .
How is the judge taking their failure to produce the data ?
Does making a motion instead of producing the data result in an automatic extension somehow ?
Is this an unwritten part of due process now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be the beginnings of an interesting new strategy against the RIAA.
Forcing the RIAA to produce the verifiable truth about various things and to pull their skeletons from their closets and put them on display can likely act as quite a deterrent against RIAA actions.Still.
How is the judge taking their failure to produce the data?
Does making a motion instead of producing the data result in an automatic extension somehow?
Is this an unwritten part of due process now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28726107</id>
	<title>Yippy!</title>
	<author>WeeBit</author>
	<datestamp>1247765340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>/weebit claps! <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/weebit proceeds to do the happy dance!</htmltext>
<tokenext>/weebit claps !
/weebit proceeds to do the happy dance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/weebit claps!
/weebit proceeds to do the happy dance!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721327</id>
	<title>Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247776320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what piece of paperwork do I have to file</p></div><p>A couple hundred $100 bills is the correct paperwork needed to be filed good sir.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what piece of paperwork do I have to fileA couple hundred $ 100 bills is the correct paperwork needed to be filed good sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what piece of paperwork do I have to fileA couple hundred $100 bills is the correct paperwork needed to be filed good sir.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721589</id>
	<title>Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ray--if I was ordered by a judge to produce a detailed breakdown of my accounting (say a trial for tax evasion) practices over the past years by 7/31, and on the 31st I came to court with just a "protective order motion" asking that my accounting practices be kept secret...<br> <br>
Wouldn't I be held in contempt?</p></div></blockquote><p>IANNYCL, but the awnser is no.  A protective order does not prevent your opponent from using the information produced as part of the trial, it keeps your opponent from sharing the information outside the context of the trial.</p><p>Judge Gertner was not happy here because the plaintiffs' lawyers moved for a protective order, arguing for protection of a subset of the information, but gave her a <a href="https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/doc1/09513222532" title="uscourts.gov" rel="nofollow">proposed protective order</a> [uscourts.gov] (login and $0.72 required) with much broader scope.  For example, it allowed for documents previously produced to be retroactively protected:

</p><blockquote><div><p>7. Documents previously produced shall be retroactively designated by notice in
writing of the designated class of each document by Bates number within ten (10) days of the
entry of this order. Documents unintentionally produced without designation as "Confidential"
may be retroactively designated in the same manner and shall be treated appropriately from the
date written notice of the designation is provided to the receiving party.</p></div></blockquote><p>The Judge still gave them a protective order, but it was more limited than their proposed protective order.  In particular, she didn't provide for protection of their revenue figures.  Perhaps if they ad they shown that they had procedures in place to prevent the revenue figures from getting back to their clients, then she might have been willing to protect this information.  But they did not, so she did not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ray--if I was ordered by a judge to produce a detailed breakdown of my accounting ( say a trial for tax evasion ) practices over the past years by 7/31 , and on the 31st I came to court with just a " protective order motion " asking that my accounting practices be kept secret.. . Would n't I be held in contempt ? IANNYCL , but the awnser is no .
A protective order does not prevent your opponent from using the information produced as part of the trial , it keeps your opponent from sharing the information outside the context of the trial.Judge Gertner was not happy here because the plaintiffs ' lawyers moved for a protective order , arguing for protection of a subset of the information , but gave her a proposed protective order [ uscourts.gov ] ( login and $ 0.72 required ) with much broader scope .
For example , it allowed for documents previously produced to be retroactively protected : 7 .
Documents previously produced shall be retroactively designated by notice in writing of the designated class of each document by Bates number within ten ( 10 ) days of the entry of this order .
Documents unintentionally produced without designation as " Confidential " may be retroactively designated in the same manner and shall be treated appropriately from the date written notice of the designation is provided to the receiving party.The Judge still gave them a protective order , but it was more limited than their proposed protective order .
In particular , she did n't provide for protection of their revenue figures .
Perhaps if they ad they shown that they had procedures in place to prevent the revenue figures from getting back to their clients , then she might have been willing to protect this information .
But they did not , so she did not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ray--if I was ordered by a judge to produce a detailed breakdown of my accounting (say a trial for tax evasion) practices over the past years by 7/31, and on the 31st I came to court with just a "protective order motion" asking that my accounting practices be kept secret... 
Wouldn't I be held in contempt?IANNYCL, but the awnser is no.
A protective order does not prevent your opponent from using the information produced as part of the trial, it keeps your opponent from sharing the information outside the context of the trial.Judge Gertner was not happy here because the plaintiffs' lawyers moved for a protective order, arguing for protection of a subset of the information, but gave her a proposed protective order [uscourts.gov] (login and $0.72 required) with much broader scope.
For example, it allowed for documents previously produced to be retroactively protected:

7.
Documents previously produced shall be retroactively designated by notice in
writing of the designated class of each document by Bates number within ten (10) days of the
entry of this order.
Documents unintentionally produced without designation as "Confidential"
may be retroactively designated in the same manner and shall be treated appropriately from the
date written notice of the designation is provided to the receiving party.The Judge still gave them a protective order, but it was more limited than their proposed protective order.
In particular, she didn't provide for protection of their revenue figures.
Perhaps if they ad they shown that they had procedures in place to prevent the revenue figures from getting back to their clients, then she might have been willing to protect this information.
But they did not, so she did not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723655</id>
	<title>Taxes too</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1247742840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just the royalties/payments to the artists, it's the taxes, which could become an even bigger issue.<br>While big corps might be able to get away with shady practises to hide their real profits, if they try to stick with a large penalty by announcing revenues of several times what was declared on their taxes they're likely going to be in deep trouble</p><p>Not only that, but showing huge profits is going to blow away their pleas of "piracy is killing the industry and we're losing money/profits/etc", which is probably the real point here....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just the royalties/payments to the artists , it 's the taxes , which could become an even bigger issue.While big corps might be able to get away with shady practises to hide their real profits , if they try to stick with a large penalty by announcing revenues of several times what was declared on their taxes they 're likely going to be in deep troubleNot only that , but showing huge profits is going to blow away their pleas of " piracy is killing the industry and we 're losing money/profits/etc " , which is probably the real point here... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just the royalties/payments to the artists, it's the taxes, which could become an even bigger issue.While big corps might be able to get away with shady practises to hide their real profits, if they try to stick with a large penalty by announcing revenues of several times what was declared on their taxes they're likely going to be in deep troubleNot only that, but showing huge profits is going to blow away their pleas of "piracy is killing the industry and we're losing money/profits/etc", which is probably the real point here....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721167</id>
	<title>What are these other documents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247775540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gertner's ruling states that "[the Court] will, however, order the second set of documents, which implicate the business interests of third-party artist-owned companies, shielded from disclosure."</p><p>What are these documents, and who are these "third-party artist-owned companies?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gertner 's ruling states that " [ the Court ] will , however , order the second set of documents , which implicate the business interests of third-party artist-owned companies , shielded from disclosure .
" What are these documents , and who are these " third-party artist-owned companies ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gertner's ruling states that "[the Court] will, however, order the second set of documents, which implicate the business interests of third-party artist-owned companies, shielded from disclosure.
"What are these documents, and who are these "third-party artist-owned companies?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722851</id>
	<title>Re:Come on Ray!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol, visa overcharge.</p><p>Hey, could Visa and RIAA be secretly working together? D: OMG</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol , visa overcharge.Hey , could Visa and RIAA be secretly working together ?
D : OMG</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol, visa overcharge.Hey, could Visa and RIAA be secretly working together?
D: OMG</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28726955</id>
	<title>Re:Music is free</title>
	<author>Pence128</author>
	<datestamp>1247821800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see why artists don't just become their own record companies. If I could buy DRM free music at a reasonable price, that wasn't going to the MAFIAA, I would. Just run a big server and throw some checkout software on it. even if they sold their music for $0.05 per track, they'd still be making more than the 3.5\% or whatever they get from record companies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why artists do n't just become their own record companies .
If I could buy DRM free music at a reasonable price , that was n't going to the MAFIAA , I would .
Just run a big server and throw some checkout software on it .
even if they sold their music for $ 0.05 per track , they 'd still be making more than the 3.5 \ % or whatever they get from record companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why artists don't just become their own record companies.
If I could buy DRM free music at a reasonable price, that wasn't going to the MAFIAA, I would.
Just run a big server and throw some checkout software on it.
even if they sold their music for $0.05 per track, they'd still be making more than the 3.5\% or whatever they get from record companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720839</id>
	<title>In other words...</title>
	<author>Kayden</author>
	<datestamp>1247774160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The decline in physical sales correlates perfectly to the increase in digital sales?  So they'll have a hard time whining about pirates because they're still making a ton of money, but still want to play the victim.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The decline in physical sales correlates perfectly to the increase in digital sales ?
So they 'll have a hard time whining about pirates because they 're still making a ton of money , but still want to play the victim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The decline in physical sales correlates perfectly to the increase in digital sales?
So they'll have a hard time whining about pirates because they're still making a ton of money, but still want to play the victim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123</id>
	<title>Is this Legit, or Contempt?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247775360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ray--if I was ordered by a judge to produce a detailed breakdown of my accounting (say a trial for tax evasion) practices over the past years by 7/31, and on the 31st I came to court with just a "protective order motion" asking that my accounting practices be kept secret...</p><p>Wouldn't I be held in contempt?</p><p>I mean...I can see producing the motion *with* the information...or...before it...but... tell me why it is these guys appear to have rights in the legal system that everyone else doesn't...  More importantly, what piece of paperwork do I have to file so I can ignore court orders like they do and get off scott free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ray--if I was ordered by a judge to produce a detailed breakdown of my accounting ( say a trial for tax evasion ) practices over the past years by 7/31 , and on the 31st I came to court with just a " protective order motion " asking that my accounting practices be kept secret...Would n't I be held in contempt ? I mean...I can see producing the motion * with * the information...or...before it...but... tell me why it is these guys appear to have rights in the legal system that everyone else does n't... More importantly , what piece of paperwork do I have to file so I can ignore court orders like they do and get off scott free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ray--if I was ordered by a judge to produce a detailed breakdown of my accounting (say a trial for tax evasion) practices over the past years by 7/31, and on the 31st I came to court with just a "protective order motion" asking that my accounting practices be kept secret...Wouldn't I be held in contempt?I mean...I can see producing the motion *with* the information...or...before it...but... tell me why it is these guys appear to have rights in the legal system that everyone else doesn't...  More importantly, what piece of paperwork do I have to file so I can ignore court orders like they do and get off scott free?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723143</id>
	<title>Music is free</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1247740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today, if you are one of the folks "in the know" about downloading music, you can grab whatever you want for free.  There isn't anything that is going to stop this, really.  I believe there is a dividing line between the folks that went to school during a time when such sharing (even floppy trading) was going on and older people.  The older people as a general rule do not know about downloading and aren't getting their music for free.</p><p>As this demographic changes, fewer and fewer people are going to be paying for music.  It is a fact that disturbs the music companies to no end, because their time is limited.  In China they have already faced up to this and sales of music is nonexistent.  No matter what, the time remaining for there to be a revenue stream associated with recorded music is limited.</p><p>As far as copyright is concerned, who cares how much money the record companies are receiving?  Even if all the downloading that is going on didn't change their revenue in the slightest, this is still irrelevent to copyright protection and the penalties associated with it.  A jury might find, with a symathetic defendent that the statutory penalties are too stiff when compared with the volume of sharing (copyright violation) that is going on in the world today.  But still, I don't see this having anything to do with record company revenue.  Unless you want to make the argument that the record companies are receiving an adequate amount of compensation and further compensation is undeserved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today , if you are one of the folks " in the know " about downloading music , you can grab whatever you want for free .
There is n't anything that is going to stop this , really .
I believe there is a dividing line between the folks that went to school during a time when such sharing ( even floppy trading ) was going on and older people .
The older people as a general rule do not know about downloading and are n't getting their music for free.As this demographic changes , fewer and fewer people are going to be paying for music .
It is a fact that disturbs the music companies to no end , because their time is limited .
In China they have already faced up to this and sales of music is nonexistent .
No matter what , the time remaining for there to be a revenue stream associated with recorded music is limited.As far as copyright is concerned , who cares how much money the record companies are receiving ?
Even if all the downloading that is going on did n't change their revenue in the slightest , this is still irrelevent to copyright protection and the penalties associated with it .
A jury might find , with a symathetic defendent that the statutory penalties are too stiff when compared with the volume of sharing ( copyright violation ) that is going on in the world today .
But still , I do n't see this having anything to do with record company revenue .
Unless you want to make the argument that the record companies are receiving an adequate amount of compensation and further compensation is undeserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today, if you are one of the folks "in the know" about downloading music, you can grab whatever you want for free.
There isn't anything that is going to stop this, really.
I believe there is a dividing line between the folks that went to school during a time when such sharing (even floppy trading) was going on and older people.
The older people as a general rule do not know about downloading and aren't getting their music for free.As this demographic changes, fewer and fewer people are going to be paying for music.
It is a fact that disturbs the music companies to no end, because their time is limited.
In China they have already faced up to this and sales of music is nonexistent.
No matter what, the time remaining for there to be a revenue stream associated with recorded music is limited.As far as copyright is concerned, who cares how much money the record companies are receiving?
Even if all the downloading that is going on didn't change their revenue in the slightest, this is still irrelevent to copyright protection and the penalties associated with it.
A jury might find, with a symathetic defendent that the statutory penalties are too stiff when compared with the volume of sharing (copyright violation) that is going on in the world today.
But still, I don't see this having anything to do with record company revenue.
Unless you want to make the argument that the record companies are receiving an adequate amount of compensation and further compensation is undeserved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28733637</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247862120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NO! NEVER! You would steal the coke from our children's noses! How are we to support their pound a day habit?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NO !
NEVER ! You would steal the coke from our children 's noses !
How are we to support their pound a day habit ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO!
NEVER! You would steal the coke from our children's noses!
How are we to support their pound a day habit?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721191</id>
	<title>There, RIAA shit.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1247775660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the judge has corrected a MAJOR malfunction in your logic circuits. next time when you accuse someone of damaging your profits, you will remember to actually prove EVIDENCE to back up your case. that is, unless your leashholders are afraid of being proven wrong about all the shit you have been perpetrating. enjoy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the judge has corrected a MAJOR malfunction in your logic circuits .
next time when you accuse someone of damaging your profits , you will remember to actually prove EVIDENCE to back up your case .
that is , unless your leashholders are afraid of being proven wrong about all the shit you have been perpetrating .
enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the judge has corrected a MAJOR malfunction in your logic circuits.
next time when you accuse someone of damaging your profits, you will remember to actually prove EVIDENCE to back up your case.
that is, unless your leashholders are afraid of being proven wrong about all the shit you have been perpetrating.
enjoy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721113</id>
	<title>Re:Come on Ray!</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1247775360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like we have some rejects with mod points running loose.</p><p>Can someone please correct these retarded moderations they've done.</p><p>kthxbai.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like we have some rejects with mod points running loose.Can someone please correct these retarded moderations they 've done.kthxbai .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like we have some rejects with mod points running loose.Can someone please correct these retarded moderations they've done.kthxbai.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721925</id>
	<title>tubGiRl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247735400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">can really ask of And she ran tha7 have raged Slashdot's found out about the they wa8t you to luck I'll find FreeBSD went out serves to reinforce For successful</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>can really ask of And she ran tha7 have raged Slashdot 's found out about the they wa8t you to luck I 'll find FreeBSD went out serves to reinforce For successful [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can really ask of And she ran tha7 have raged Slashdot's found out about the they wa8t you to luck I'll find FreeBSD went out serves to reinforce For successful [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28724311</id>
	<title>Re:Finally we will get the truth... maybe...</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1247746260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, if I sold records, my interest in releasing fewer records would be slim. Not saying that there wasn't a reason for them to do so of their own free will, but just food for thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , if I sold records , my interest in releasing fewer records would be slim .
Not saying that there was n't a reason for them to do so of their own free will , but just food for thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, if I sold records, my interest in releasing fewer records would be slim.
Not saying that there wasn't a reason for them to do so of their own free will, but just food for thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721349</id>
	<title>Re:Come on Ray!</title>
	<author>hosecoat</author>
	<datestamp>1247776380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Spill the beans already, how much are we talking?



Anyone down for taking bets?</p></div><p>It's obviously $23,148,855,308,184,500.00</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spill the beans already , how much are we talking ?
Anyone down for taking bets ? It 's obviously $ 23,148,855,308,184,500.00</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spill the beans already, how much are we talking?
Anyone down for taking bets?It's obviously $23,148,855,308,184,500.00
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721447</id>
	<title>Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt?</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1247776800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  More importantly, what piece of paperwork do I have to file so I can ignore court orders like they do and get off scott free?</p></div><p>You need to fill out and turn in a huge number of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_one\_hundred-dollar\_bill" title="wikipedia.org">these</a> [wikipedia.org] to be immune to the law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , what piece of paperwork do I have to file so I can ignore court orders like they do and get off scott free ? You need to fill out and turn in a huge number of these [ wikipedia.org ] to be immune to the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  More importantly, what piece of paperwork do I have to file so I can ignore court orders like they do and get off scott free?You need to fill out and turn in a huge number of these [wikipedia.org] to be immune to the law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721939</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder if ...</title>
	<author>moderatorrater</author>
	<datestamp>1247735460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One would think that they would have the numbers they told the artists easily accessible and widely known by anybody in the organization that deals with those numbers. You don't want someone to slip up at the wrong time, after all.<br> <br>

My guess is that they want more time to figure out the best way to present the numbers and how much info they can hold back without being held in contempt. If they can get away with just disclosing the profit they have in the balance books, that's completely different from producing the balance books themselves or even the gross revenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One would think that they would have the numbers they told the artists easily accessible and widely known by anybody in the organization that deals with those numbers .
You do n't want someone to slip up at the wrong time , after all .
My guess is that they want more time to figure out the best way to present the numbers and how much info they can hold back without being held in contempt .
If they can get away with just disclosing the profit they have in the balance books , that 's completely different from producing the balance books themselves or even the gross revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One would think that they would have the numbers they told the artists easily accessible and widely known by anybody in the organization that deals with those numbers.
You don't want someone to slip up at the wrong time, after all.
My guess is that they want more time to figure out the best way to present the numbers and how much info they can hold back without being held in contempt.
If they can get away with just disclosing the profit they have in the balance books, that's completely different from producing the balance books themselves or even the gross revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107</id>
	<title>But Sir</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247775360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MAFIAA: But sir we sold 4 million digital downloads and made 2 million in revenue from those downloads.</p><p>JUDGE: So your are saying you made about 50 cents each download right?</p><p>MAFIAA: Yes sir.</p><p>JUDGE: So we can roughly say the value of each download is 50 cents right?</p><p>MAFIAA: Yes sir.</p><p>JUDGE: So even if we get "Biblical" in damages of 40 fold we are looking at about $20 a track right?</p><p>MAFIAA: Errr well....</p><p>JUDGE: So for 24 tracks at $20 bucks each Jammie owes you about $480 bucks right?</p><p>MAFIAA: You have to take into account everyone that downloaded them.</p><p>JUDGE: Ok so lets say 10 people downloaded each one, that's about so that's about $4800 right?</p><p>MAFIAA: Sir that isn't enough!</p><p>JUDGE: How much is enough?</p><p>MAFIAA: IT'S NEVER ENOUGH!!! (Rips off the mask to reveal he's infact a tenticle demon!!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MAFIAA : But sir we sold 4 million digital downloads and made 2 million in revenue from those downloads.JUDGE : So your are saying you made about 50 cents each download right ? MAFIAA : Yes sir.JUDGE : So we can roughly say the value of each download is 50 cents right ? MAFIAA : Yes sir.JUDGE : So even if we get " Biblical " in damages of 40 fold we are looking at about $ 20 a track right ? MAFIAA : Errr well....JUDGE : So for 24 tracks at $ 20 bucks each Jammie owes you about $ 480 bucks right ? MAFIAA : You have to take into account everyone that downloaded them.JUDGE : Ok so lets say 10 people downloaded each one , that 's about so that 's about $ 4800 right ? MAFIAA : Sir that is n't enough ! JUDGE : How much is enough ? MAFIAA : IT 'S NEVER ENOUGH ! ! !
( Rips off the mask to reveal he 's infact a tenticle demon ! !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MAFIAA: But sir we sold 4 million digital downloads and made 2 million in revenue from those downloads.JUDGE: So your are saying you made about 50 cents each download right?MAFIAA: Yes sir.JUDGE: So we can roughly say the value of each download is 50 cents right?MAFIAA: Yes sir.JUDGE: So even if we get "Biblical" in damages of 40 fold we are looking at about $20 a track right?MAFIAA: Errr well....JUDGE: So for 24 tracks at $20 bucks each Jammie owes you about $480 bucks right?MAFIAA: You have to take into account everyone that downloaded them.JUDGE: Ok so lets say 10 people downloaded each one, that's about so that's about $4800 right?MAFIAA: Sir that isn't enough!JUDGE: How much is enough?MAFIAA: IT'S NEVER ENOUGH!!!
(Rips off the mask to reveal he's infact a tenticle demon!!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720793</id>
	<title>hollywood accounting</title>
	<author>croddy</author>
	<datestamp>1247773980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>haha! well, maybe now their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood\_accounting" title="wikipedia.org">hollywood accounting</a> [wikipedia.org] will come back to bite them in the ass as they struggle to show that the songs are now worth massive damages, when they were worth nothing or less as they computed royalties for the artists they were screwing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>haha !
well , maybe now their hollywood accounting [ wikipedia.org ] will come back to bite them in the ass as they struggle to show that the songs are now worth massive damages , when they were worth nothing or less as they computed royalties for the artists they were screwing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haha!
well, maybe now their hollywood accounting [wikipedia.org] will come back to bite them in the ass as they struggle to show that the songs are now worth massive damages, when they were worth nothing or less as they computed royalties for the artists they were screwing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722849</id>
	<title>Re:Come on Ray!</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1247739300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Spill the beans already, how much are we talking? Anyone down for taking bets?</p></div></blockquote><p>It's obviously $23,148,855,308,184,500.00</p></div></blockquote><p>
Oh, then just pay for it with a Visa card.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spill the beans already , how much are we talking ?
Anyone down for taking bets ? It 's obviously $ 23,148,855,308,184,500.00 Oh , then just pay for it with a Visa card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spill the beans already, how much are we talking?
Anyone down for taking bets?It's obviously $23,148,855,308,184,500.00
Oh, then just pay for it with a Visa card.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721663</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder if ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be pretty typical in show business. A major motion picture can have a HUGE box office and still mysteriously show no profit when it comes time to give out the money to the people with "points" in the movie. Peter Jackson had to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/business/media/27movie.html" title="nytimes.com">sue New Line</a> [nytimes.com] to get his fair share of the The Lord of the Rings movies, after they tried this with him (and he won).</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be pretty typical in show business .
A major motion picture can have a HUGE box office and still mysteriously show no profit when it comes time to give out the money to the people with " points " in the movie .
Peter Jackson had to sue New Line [ nytimes.com ] to get his fair share of the The Lord of the Rings movies , after they tried this with him ( and he won ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be pretty typical in show business.
A major motion picture can have a HUGE box office and still mysteriously show no profit when it comes time to give out the money to the people with "points" in the movie.
Peter Jackson had to sue New Line [nytimes.com] to get his fair share of the The Lord of the Rings movies, after they tried this with him (and he won).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721919</id>
	<title>Re:cracks in the dam</title>
	<author>Beardo the Bearded</author>
	<datestamp>1247735340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> make sure when you <b>purchase music</b> you don't buy anything from these companies that fund the RIAA.</p></div><p>Okay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>make sure when you purchase music you do n't buy anything from these companies that fund the RIAA.Okay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> make sure when you purchase music you don't buy anything from these companies that fund the RIAA.Okay.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28726053</id>
	<title>Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt?</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1247764620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would have issued an order striking their complaint, dismissing the case.</p></div><p>But then, we wouldn't see the records, right? Maybe the judge is as curious as you and I regarding what they're trying to hide?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have issued an order striking their complaint , dismissing the case.But then , we would n't see the records , right ?
Maybe the judge is as curious as you and I regarding what they 're trying to hide ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have issued an order striking their complaint, dismissing the case.But then, we wouldn't see the records, right?
Maybe the judge is as curious as you and I regarding what they're trying to hide?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721121</id>
	<title>But the real story is...</title>
	<author>DarksideDaveOR</author>
	<datestamp>1247775360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much time and money (much of it coming out of our taxes) could be saved if the law could somehow be made clear enough that it would be obvious which of these sort of motions would succeed, and which wouldn't?</p><p>Or if things like company sales and profits were a truly matter of public record in the first place and so massaging would be obvious long before a case ever got to court?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much time and money ( much of it coming out of our taxes ) could be saved if the law could somehow be made clear enough that it would be obvious which of these sort of motions would succeed , and which would n't ? Or if things like company sales and profits were a truly matter of public record in the first place and so massaging would be obvious long before a case ever got to court ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much time and money (much of it coming out of our taxes) could be saved if the law could somehow be made clear enough that it would be obvious which of these sort of motions would succeed, and which wouldn't?Or if things like company sales and profits were a truly matter of public record in the first place and so massaging would be obvious long before a case ever got to court?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722733</id>
	<title>Re:But Sir</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1247738760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In your utopian P2P network, the last person to download doesn't upload to anyone. The average will always be less than one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In your utopian P2P network , the last person to download does n't upload to anyone .
The average will always be less than one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In your utopian P2P network, the last person to download doesn't upload to anyone.
The average will always be less than one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28730327</id>
	<title>Re:But Sir</title>
	<author>bemymonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247847540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"(Rips off the mask to reveal he's infact a <b>tenticle</b> demon!!)"</p><p>So which one's the actual typo? The i or the n?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ( Rips off the mask to reveal he 's infact a tenticle demon ! !
) " So which one 's the actual typo ?
The i or the n ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"(Rips off the mask to reveal he's infact a tenticle demon!!
)"So which one's the actual typo?
The i or the n?
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721445</id>
	<title>Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt?</title>
	<author>aardwolf64</author>
	<datestamp>1247776800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking the same thing.  They intentionally missed a court ordered deadline.  That should be contempt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking the same thing .
They intentionally missed a court ordered deadline .
That should be contempt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking the same thing.
They intentionally missed a court ordered deadline.
That should be contempt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725355</id>
	<title>Re:But Sir</title>
	<author>torkus</author>
	<datestamp>1247754780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually (and i still find your mock dialog funny so don't take this in a bad way) each of those people who *downloaded* a song is responsible for their copyright infringement (refuse to call it theft).  So Jammie cant be held responsible for those downloads if the people who downloaded them already are.</p><p>Or reverse - if the uploading is infringing act, then you can't go after someone for just having the songs.</p><p>That or you wind up the the lovely paradox 'everybody vs. everybody where everybody is sure to get screwed over thought mr broflowski is sure to make a pretty penny'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually ( and i still find your mock dialog funny so do n't take this in a bad way ) each of those people who * downloaded * a song is responsible for their copyright infringement ( refuse to call it theft ) .
So Jammie cant be held responsible for those downloads if the people who downloaded them already are.Or reverse - if the uploading is infringing act , then you ca n't go after someone for just having the songs.That or you wind up the the lovely paradox 'everybody vs. everybody where everybody is sure to get screwed over thought mr broflowski is sure to make a pretty penny'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually (and i still find your mock dialog funny so don't take this in a bad way) each of those people who *downloaded* a song is responsible for their copyright infringement (refuse to call it theft).
So Jammie cant be held responsible for those downloads if the people who downloaded them already are.Or reverse - if the uploading is infringing act, then you can't go after someone for just having the songs.That or you wind up the the lovely paradox 'everybody vs. everybody where everybody is sure to get screwed over thought mr broflowski is sure to make a pretty penny'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721703</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder if ...</title>
	<author>ewilts</author>
	<datestamp>1247777760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder if they told the artists one set of numbers and need more time to make sure what they give to the court matches that set.</p></div><p>Herein lies the issue.  If they go with the artist numbers, then revenues might be small.  Punitive and compensatory damages will likely be small as a result.  However, if they want to claim higher numbers, then the artists will turn around and sue them for the stolen revenue.  They're caught between a rock and a hard place, and that's good...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they told the artists one set of numbers and need more time to make sure what they give to the court matches that set.Herein lies the issue .
If they go with the artist numbers , then revenues might be small .
Punitive and compensatory damages will likely be small as a result .
However , if they want to claim higher numbers , then the artists will turn around and sue them for the stolen revenue .
They 're caught between a rock and a hard place , and that 's good.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they told the artists one set of numbers and need more time to make sure what they give to the court matches that set.Herein lies the issue.
If they go with the artist numbers, then revenues might be small.
Punitive and compensatory damages will likely be small as a result.
However, if they want to claim higher numbers, then the artists will turn around and sue them for the stolen revenue.
They're caught between a rock and a hard place, and that's good...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721503</id>
	<title>good lord</title>
	<author>amohat</author>
	<datestamp>1247777040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm wrong about the judicial system...apparently there's a lone judge out there who isn't an idiot or a stooge!</p><p>Who knew?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm wrong about the judicial system...apparently there 's a lone judge out there who is n't an idiot or a stooge ! Who knew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm wrong about the judicial system...apparently there's a lone judge out there who isn't an idiot or a stooge!Who knew?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28728861</id>
	<title>Incapable of producing the data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Most record companies have millions in unclaimed and unpaid royalties.  One thing all their systems have in common, they were built around "record" sales and not single song sales. Each single song on itunes probably corresponds to a whole "album" in their systems.   So with that in mind, I doubt they could even produce the data requested by the judge.</p><p>Sounds like a trump card to me...Lawyer for the defendant " I would like a detailed breakdown of the royalties generated by the songs....etc..etc."  RIAA lawyer " AWWWWW F*CK I'M DEAD...withdrawing lawsuit."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most record companies have millions in unclaimed and unpaid royalties .
One thing all their systems have in common , they were built around " record " sales and not single song sales .
Each single song on itunes probably corresponds to a whole " album " in their systems .
So with that in mind , I doubt they could even produce the data requested by the judge.Sounds like a trump card to me...Lawyer for the defendant " I would like a detailed breakdown of the royalties generated by the songs....etc..etc .
" RIAA lawyer " AWWWWW F * CK I 'M DEAD...withdrawing lawsuit .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Most record companies have millions in unclaimed and unpaid royalties.
One thing all their systems have in common, they were built around "record" sales and not single song sales.
Each single song on itunes probably corresponds to a whole "album" in their systems.
So with that in mind, I doubt they could even produce the data requested by the judge.Sounds like a trump card to me...Lawyer for the defendant " I would like a detailed breakdown of the royalties generated by the songs....etc..etc.
"  RIAA lawyer " AWWWWW F*CK I'M DEAD...withdrawing lawsuit.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720869</id>
	<title>cracks in the dam</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1247774340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sony, EMI, Warner Bros, and Universal are in real trouble.  Make sure you check <a href="http://riaaradar.com/" title="riaaradar.com">http://riaaradar.com/</a> [riaaradar.com] to make sure when you purchase music you don't buy anything from these companies that fund the RIAA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony , EMI , Warner Bros , and Universal are in real trouble .
Make sure you check http : //riaaradar.com/ [ riaaradar.com ] to make sure when you purchase music you do n't buy anything from these companies that fund the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony, EMI, Warner Bros, and Universal are in real trouble.
Make sure you check http://riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com] to make sure when you purchase music you don't buy anything from these companies that fund the RIAA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721639</id>
	<title>Finally we will get the truth... maybe...</title>
	<author>pyrothebouncer</author>
	<datestamp>1247777520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Early 2000 I did a bit of research on the topic and found somewhere a document, converted to a jpg, that showed the RIAA's claim of loss of income to be fewer records released, not because people were downloading music for free. I lost the doc in some data transfers from hard drive to hard drive as equipment was upgraded, but the facts were that each year they released more records and their profits increased each year, when 1999 came around they however released fewer records, thus having decreased profit. But they claimed that people using p2p caused their loss, total bullshit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Early 2000 I did a bit of research on the topic and found somewhere a document , converted to a jpg , that showed the RIAA 's claim of loss of income to be fewer records released , not because people were downloading music for free .
I lost the doc in some data transfers from hard drive to hard drive as equipment was upgraded , but the facts were that each year they released more records and their profits increased each year , when 1999 came around they however released fewer records , thus having decreased profit .
But they claimed that people using p2p caused their loss , total bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Early 2000 I did a bit of research on the topic and found somewhere a document, converted to a jpg, that showed the RIAA's claim of loss of income to be fewer records released, not because people were downloading music for free.
I lost the doc in some data transfers from hard drive to hard drive as equipment was upgraded, but the facts were that each year they released more records and their profits increased each year, when 1999 came around they however released fewer records, thus having decreased profit.
But they claimed that people using p2p caused their loss, total bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720747</id>
	<title>obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247773800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me be the first to say.</p><p>Haha, motherfuckers the wheels really fell off their gravy train.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me be the first to say.Haha , motherfuckers the wheels really fell off their gravy train .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me be the first to say.Haha, motherfuckers the wheels really fell off their gravy train.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721685</id>
	<title>Re:Come on Ray!</title>
	<author>Kabuthunk</author>
	<datestamp>1247777640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm putting my money on "case is dropped, RIAA gets to keep things secret"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm putting my money on " case is dropped , RIAA gets to keep things secret "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm putting my money on "case is dropped, RIAA gets to keep things secret"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720723</id>
	<title>Show us the money!</title>
	<author>pilgrim23</author>
	<datestamp>1247773680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I will believe it when the smoke and mirrors are actually changed to some hard data.  This seems more an Emperor's new clothes thing to me though.  The RIAA does not wish to reveal that the hand they are playing is a busted flush</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will believe it when the smoke and mirrors are actually changed to some hard data .
This seems more an Emperor 's new clothes thing to me though .
The RIAA does not wish to reveal that the hand they are playing is a busted flush</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will believe it when the smoke and mirrors are actually changed to some hard data.
This seems more an Emperor's new clothes thing to me though.
The RIAA does not wish to reveal that the hand they are playing is a busted flush</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28726197</id>
	<title>Re:Show us the money!</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1247766480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The RIAA does not wish to reveal that the hand they are playing is a busted flush</p></div><p>Actually, what they don't want to reveal is that the hand they bet with (share to the artists) is not the hand they put down when it is called (share to themselves).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA does not wish to reveal that the hand they are playing is a busted flushActually , what they do n't want to reveal is that the hand they bet with ( share to the artists ) is not the hand they put down when it is called ( share to themselves ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA does not wish to reveal that the hand they are playing is a busted flushActually, what they don't want to reveal is that the hand they bet with (share to the artists) is not the hand they put down when it is called (share to themselves).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723051</id>
	<title>Re:But Sir</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Infringement isn't about sharing a <i>complete</i> copy.  If you shared half a song with two people, that could be interpreted (and would be, I expect) of two infringements.</p><p>Taken to an (absurd IMO) extreme, that could be taken to mean that if you shared 1/N of a song with N people, that would be N infringements<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... meaning one could easily "infringe" several hundred thousand times while uploading to someone over p2p.  This seems absolutely absurd to us, but until someone answers <i>"what fraction of a copyrighted work is no longer considered infringement"</i>, that could very well BE the court interpretation as well.  Currently, it seems (to a lay person like myself) that the courts consider ANY fraction of a work to be infringing.</p><p>Not being a lawyer, the only reference I have on this is the copyright.gov listing of the copyright code, which seems pretty vague.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Infringement is n't about sharing a complete copy .
If you shared half a song with two people , that could be interpreted ( and would be , I expect ) of two infringements.Taken to an ( absurd IMO ) extreme , that could be taken to mean that if you shared 1/N of a song with N people , that would be N infringements ... meaning one could easily " infringe " several hundred thousand times while uploading to someone over p2p .
This seems absolutely absurd to us , but until someone answers " what fraction of a copyrighted work is no longer considered infringement " , that could very well BE the court interpretation as well .
Currently , it seems ( to a lay person like myself ) that the courts consider ANY fraction of a work to be infringing.Not being a lawyer , the only reference I have on this is the copyright.gov listing of the copyright code , which seems pretty vague .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Infringement isn't about sharing a complete copy.
If you shared half a song with two people, that could be interpreted (and would be, I expect) of two infringements.Taken to an (absurd IMO) extreme, that could be taken to mean that if you shared 1/N of a song with N people, that would be N infringements ... meaning one could easily "infringe" several hundred thousand times while uploading to someone over p2p.
This seems absolutely absurd to us, but until someone answers "what fraction of a copyrighted work is no longer considered infringement", that could very well BE the court interpretation as well.
Currently, it seems (to a lay person like myself) that the courts consider ANY fraction of a work to be infringing.Not being a lawyer, the only reference I have on this is the copyright.gov listing of the copyright code, which seems pretty vague.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725263</id>
	<title>Re:But Sir</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247753940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slightly off topic but...</p><p>In the literary world, plagiarism is having a similar debate right now. Obviously large passages of copied and un-cited works is plagiarism, but does one copied, un-cited line count as plagiarism? Is the use of elves, hobbits, gold-circular-shaped-jewelry-with-words-inscribed-on-them plagiarism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly off topic but...In the literary world , plagiarism is having a similar debate right now .
Obviously large passages of copied and un-cited works is plagiarism , but does one copied , un-cited line count as plagiarism ?
Is the use of elves , hobbits , gold-circular-shaped-jewelry-with-words-inscribed-on-them plagiarism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slightly off topic but...In the literary world, plagiarism is having a similar debate right now.
Obviously large passages of copied and un-cited works is plagiarism, but does one copied, un-cited line count as plagiarism?
Is the use of elves, hobbits, gold-circular-shaped-jewelry-with-words-inscribed-on-them plagiarism?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721769</id>
	<title>Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ray--if I was ordered by a judge to produce a detailed breakdown of my accounting (say a trial for tax evasion) practices over the past years by 7/31, and on the 31st I came to court with just a "protective order motion" asking that my accounting practices be kept secret...

Wouldn't I be held in contempt?

I mean...I can see producing the motion *with* the information...or...before it...but... tell me why it is these guys appear to have rights in the legal system that everyone else doesn't... More importantly, what piece of paperwork do I have to file so I can ignore court orders like they do and get off scott free?</p></div><p>If I were the Judge I probably wouldn't have held them in contempt, but I probably would have issued a discovery sanction. Since in this case the material is needed to assess the fair use defense, which would be a complete bar to the action, I would have issued an order striking their complaint, dismissing the case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ray--if I was ordered by a judge to produce a detailed breakdown of my accounting ( say a trial for tax evasion ) practices over the past years by 7/31 , and on the 31st I came to court with just a " protective order motion " asking that my accounting practices be kept secret.. . Would n't I be held in contempt ?
I mean...I can see producing the motion * with * the information...or...before it...but... tell me why it is these guys appear to have rights in the legal system that everyone else does n't... More importantly , what piece of paperwork do I have to file so I can ignore court orders like they do and get off scott free ? If I were the Judge I probably would n't have held them in contempt , but I probably would have issued a discovery sanction .
Since in this case the material is needed to assess the fair use defense , which would be a complete bar to the action , I would have issued an order striking their complaint , dismissing the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ray--if I was ordered by a judge to produce a detailed breakdown of my accounting (say a trial for tax evasion) practices over the past years by 7/31, and on the 31st I came to court with just a "protective order motion" asking that my accounting practices be kept secret...

Wouldn't I be held in contempt?
I mean...I can see producing the motion *with* the information...or...before it...but... tell me why it is these guys appear to have rights in the legal system that everyone else doesn't... More importantly, what piece of paperwork do I have to file so I can ignore court orders like they do and get off scott free?If I were the Judge I probably wouldn't have held them in contempt, but I probably would have issued a discovery sanction.
Since in this case the material is needed to assess the fair use defense, which would be a complete bar to the action, I would have issued an order striking their complaint, dismissing the case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721465</id>
	<title>Re:Come on Ray!</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1247776860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I'm wondering at this point is do they have to release this information publicly, or only to those participating in the case, or ?  Betting next thing we see is for them to try to limit as much as possible who has access to this evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I 'm wondering at this point is do they have to release this information publicly , or only to those participating in the case , or ?
Betting next thing we see is for them to try to limit as much as possible who has access to this evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I'm wondering at this point is do they have to release this information publicly, or only to those participating in the case, or ?
Betting next thing we see is for them to try to limit as much as possible who has access to this evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722917</id>
	<title>Re:I object!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judge Hank "The Hangman" BMW: "Shut up! Shut up! Now, prosecutor, why you think he done it?"<br>Prosecutor: "Okay, number one, Your Honor, just look at him."<br>*whole room laughs at him*<br>Frito: "He talks like a fag too."<br>Prosecutor: "And B, we got all this, pff... like... evidence of how, like... this guy didn't even pay at the hospital. And I heard that he doesn't even have his tattoo!<br>*shocked audience*<br>Prosecutor: "I know! And I'm all, 'You've gotta be shittin' me.' But check this out, man! Judge should be like... *bangs fist on table* 'GUILTY!'. Peace!"<br>*whole room cheering*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judge Hank " The Hangman " BMW : " Shut up !
Shut up !
Now , prosecutor , why you think he done it ?
" Prosecutor : " Okay , number one , Your Honor , just look at him .
" * whole room laughs at him * Frito : " He talks like a fag too .
" Prosecutor : " And B , we got all this , pff... like... evidence of how , like... this guy did n't even pay at the hospital .
And I heard that he does n't even have his tattoo !
* shocked audience * Prosecutor : " I know !
And I 'm all , 'You 've got ta be shittin ' me .
' But check this out , man !
Judge should be like... * bangs fist on table * 'GUILTY ! ' .
Peace ! " * whole room cheering *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judge Hank "The Hangman" BMW: "Shut up!
Shut up!
Now, prosecutor, why you think he done it?
"Prosecutor: "Okay, number one, Your Honor, just look at him.
"*whole room laughs at him*Frito: "He talks like a fag too.
"Prosecutor: "And B, we got all this, pff... like... evidence of how, like... this guy didn't even pay at the hospital.
And I heard that he doesn't even have his tattoo!
*shocked audience*Prosecutor: "I know!
And I'm all, 'You've gotta be shittin' me.
' But check this out, man!
Judge should be like... *bangs fist on table* 'GUILTY!'.
Peace!"*whole room cheering*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721969</id>
	<title>Re:But Sir</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1247735520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's certainly not by definition. You're either making a lot of assumptions about the behavior of the file sharing network and the individual's client (e.g., that it's very BitTorrent-like), or you're taking an entirely useless sense of the term "average".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's certainly not by definition .
You 're either making a lot of assumptions about the behavior of the file sharing network and the individual 's client ( e.g. , that it 's very BitTorrent-like ) , or you 're taking an entirely useless sense of the term " average " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's certainly not by definition.
You're either making a lot of assumptions about the behavior of the file sharing network and the individual's client (e.g., that it's very BitTorrent-like), or you're taking an entirely useless sense of the term "average".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722473</id>
	<title>Re:Come on Ray!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247737500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What an odd number! If you multiply it by 100 and convert it to hex, you get 2020202020201250

Weird.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What an odd number !
If you multiply it by 100 and convert it to hex , you get 2020202020201250 Weird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an odd number!
If you multiply it by 100 and convert it to hex, you get 2020202020201250

Weird.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721721</id>
	<title>Re:What are these other documents?</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1247777760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gertner's ruling states that "[the Court] will, however, order the second set of documents, which implicate the business interests of third-party artist-owned companies, shielded from disclosure."

What are these documents, and who are these "third-party artist-owned companies?"</p></div><p>That's non-controversial. It refers to the agreements with recording artists, other record companies, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gertner 's ruling states that " [ the Court ] will , however , order the second set of documents , which implicate the business interests of third-party artist-owned companies , shielded from disclosure .
" What are these documents , and who are these " third-party artist-owned companies ?
" That 's non-controversial .
It refers to the agreements with recording artists , other record companies , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gertner's ruling states that "[the Court] will, however, order the second set of documents, which implicate the business interests of third-party artist-owned companies, shielded from disclosure.
"

What are these documents, and who are these "third-party artist-owned companies?
"That's non-controversial.
It refers to the agreements with recording artists, other record companies, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722099</id>
	<title>Re:But Sir</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1247736120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fixed it for you....

"MAFIAA: IT'S NEVER ENOUGH!!! (Rips off the mask to reveal he's infact a **TESTICLE** demon!!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixed it for you... . " MAFIAA : IT 'S NEVER ENOUGH ! ! !
( Rips off the mask to reveal he 's infact a * * TESTICLE * * demon ! !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixed it for you....

"MAFIAA: IT'S NEVER ENOUGH!!!
(Rips off the mask to reveal he's infact a **TESTICLE** demon!!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28729109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28730327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28733637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28726955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28737525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28724311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28724153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28726197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28726053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28727293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28729929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1748235_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722917
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28727293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28726053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721703
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28726955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28737525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28733637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722851
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28729109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28730327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723051
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725263
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28722733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721969
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723459
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28729929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28723875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28725355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28724153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28726197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28720869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28724311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1748235.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1748235.28721193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
