<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_13_1755249</id>
	<title>Judge Won't Punish Lawyer For Anti-RIAA Blogging</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255456620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>xander\_zone\_xxx writes with news that Ray Beckerman, known around here as NewYorkCountryLawyer, was <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/magistrate-clears-blogger-riaa-of-vexatious-charges/">not a "vexatious" litigant, as the RIAA claimed</a>. In the same ruling the judge dismissed Beckerman's counter-claims against the RIAA. (We discussed the <a href="//news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/18/1422255&amp;tid=61">claims</a> and <a href="//news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/08/2041255&amp;tid=61">counters</a> a year back.) <i>"An attorney defending against a music-piracy lawsuit didn't cross ethical bounds by filing motions broadly attacking the recording industry and posting them on his blog, a magistrate judge has ruled, rejecting demands from the RIAA for monetary sanctions. Attorney Ray Beckerman was 'less than forthcoming at times' in defending a client against an RIAA lawsuit, but the music industry's concerns were 'largely overstated,' New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy wrote Friday."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>xander \ _zone \ _xxx writes with news that Ray Beckerman , known around here as NewYorkCountryLawyer , was not a " vexatious " litigant , as the RIAA claimed .
In the same ruling the judge dismissed Beckerman 's counter-claims against the RIAA .
( We discussed the claims and counters a year back .
) " An attorney defending against a music-piracy lawsuit did n't cross ethical bounds by filing motions broadly attacking the recording industry and posting them on his blog , a magistrate judge has ruled , rejecting demands from the RIAA for monetary sanctions .
Attorney Ray Beckerman was 'less than forthcoming at times ' in defending a client against an RIAA lawsuit , but the music industry 's concerns were 'largely overstated, ' New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy wrote Friday .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xander\_zone\_xxx writes with news that Ray Beckerman, known around here as NewYorkCountryLawyer, was not a "vexatious" litigant, as the RIAA claimed.
In the same ruling the judge dismissed Beckerman's counter-claims against the RIAA.
(We discussed the claims and counters a year back.
) "An attorney defending against a music-piracy lawsuit didn't cross ethical bounds by filing motions broadly attacking the recording industry and posting them on his blog, a magistrate judge has ruled, rejecting demands from the RIAA for monetary sanctions.
Attorney Ray Beckerman was 'less than forthcoming at times' in defending a client against an RIAA lawsuit, but the music industry's concerns were 'largely overstated,' New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy wrote Friday.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29741011</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, freedom of expression?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255453860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, they may be "frothing tyrannical dictator evil", but they're not CTHULHU evil. Though I'm sure they REALLY wish they could be that evil.</p><p>At best all they can do is offer blood sacrifices and chant "My blood for you!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they may be " frothing tyrannical dictator evil " , but they 're not CTHULHU evil .
Though I 'm sure they REALLY wish they could be that evil.At best all they can do is offer blood sacrifices and chant " My blood for you !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they may be "frothing tyrannical dictator evil", but they're not CTHULHU evil.
Though I'm sure they REALLY wish they could be that evil.At best all they can do is offer blood sacrifices and chant "My blood for you!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735335</id>
	<title>Re:Yay for Ray</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plus he's a pompous windbag who refuses to accept any viewpoint except his own!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus he 's a pompous windbag who refuses to accept any viewpoint except his own !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus he's a pompous windbag who refuses to accept any viewpoint except his own!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29736137</id>
	<title>Re:Keep it cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255424580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beware how this is applied. Although tongue-in-cheek and dramatic, the statement that the KKK are 'bettering the country' is a subjective truth, also.</p><p>There is more to mull before accepting this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beware how this is applied .
Although tongue-in-cheek and dramatic , the statement that the KKK are 'bettering the country ' is a subjective truth , also.There is more to mull before accepting this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beware how this is applied.
Although tongue-in-cheek and dramatic, the statement that the KKK are 'bettering the country' is a subjective truth, also.There is more to mull before accepting this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734693</id>
	<title>NYCL is a lawyer and must be punished!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255461240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The RIAA claimed that Lindor, her family and Beckerman "intentionally provided false information, attempted to misdirect plaintiffs as to relevant facts and events, and concealed critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue."</i></p><p>In other words, NYCL has delivered information as required but in the way that was the most advantageous to the interests of the defendant he faithfully represents.  NYCL does exactly what the plaintiff's attorneys do by being less than forthcoming with evidence that might harm their case and by characterising their evidence in ways that are not consistent with the facts in the case. (I'm sure NYCL might have exception to this assertion, but when it comes to lawyers, I have a presumption of guilt until proven innocent. [smirk])</p><p>In essence, the plaintiff's lawyers complain that NYCL is fighting fire with fire, or in their case, bullshit with bullshit and they can't handle it.</p><p>Frankly, I can't believe the plaintiff attorneys can perform this "pot calling the kettle black" act with a straight face.  Given that most judges were lawyers themselves, I find it unimaginable that they don't already see through the bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA claimed that Lindor , her family and Beckerman " intentionally provided false information , attempted to misdirect plaintiffs as to relevant facts and events , and concealed critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue .
" In other words , NYCL has delivered information as required but in the way that was the most advantageous to the interests of the defendant he faithfully represents .
NYCL does exactly what the plaintiff 's attorneys do by being less than forthcoming with evidence that might harm their case and by characterising their evidence in ways that are not consistent with the facts in the case .
( I 'm sure NYCL might have exception to this assertion , but when it comes to lawyers , I have a presumption of guilt until proven innocent .
[ smirk ] ) In essence , the plaintiff 's lawyers complain that NYCL is fighting fire with fire , or in their case , bullshit with bullshit and they ca n't handle it.Frankly , I ca n't believe the plaintiff attorneys can perform this " pot calling the kettle black " act with a straight face .
Given that most judges were lawyers themselves , I find it unimaginable that they do n't already see through the bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA claimed that Lindor, her family and Beckerman "intentionally provided false information, attempted to misdirect plaintiffs as to relevant facts and events, and concealed critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue.
"In other words, NYCL has delivered information as required but in the way that was the most advantageous to the interests of the defendant he faithfully represents.
NYCL does exactly what the plaintiff's attorneys do by being less than forthcoming with evidence that might harm their case and by characterising their evidence in ways that are not consistent with the facts in the case.
(I'm sure NYCL might have exception to this assertion, but when it comes to lawyers, I have a presumption of guilt until proven innocent.
[smirk])In essence, the plaintiff's lawyers complain that NYCL is fighting fire with fire, or in their case, bullshit with bullshit and they can't handle it.Frankly, I can't believe the plaintiff attorneys can perform this "pot calling the kettle black" act with a straight face.
Given that most judges were lawyers themselves, I find it unimaginable that they don't already see through the bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735237</id>
	<title>About Time</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1255464060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Ray Beckman has been fighting an uphill battle against the recording industry for years, and it's past time he got a bit more recognition for his efforts.  A lot of people don't appreciate that every time one of the RIAA's outrageous tactics receives even limited support in a court of law, that tactic will inevitably make its way into normal corporate practice. </p><p> This struggle is about a lot more than alleged theft of music.  It's about abuse of the legal system by corporations and individuals with deep pockets as they enforce their will on average people by threatening to bankrupt them in court if they dare to fight back against blatantly unfair practices. </p><p> I have great respect for Ray Beckman.  We need a thousand more like him. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ray Beckman has been fighting an uphill battle against the recording industry for years , and it 's past time he got a bit more recognition for his efforts .
A lot of people do n't appreciate that every time one of the RIAA 's outrageous tactics receives even limited support in a court of law , that tactic will inevitably make its way into normal corporate practice .
This struggle is about a lot more than alleged theft of music .
It 's about abuse of the legal system by corporations and individuals with deep pockets as they enforce their will on average people by threatening to bankrupt them in court if they dare to fight back against blatantly unfair practices .
I have great respect for Ray Beckman .
We need a thousand more like him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Ray Beckman has been fighting an uphill battle against the recording industry for years, and it's past time he got a bit more recognition for his efforts.
A lot of people don't appreciate that every time one of the RIAA's outrageous tactics receives even limited support in a court of law, that tactic will inevitably make its way into normal corporate practice.
This struggle is about a lot more than alleged theft of music.
It's about abuse of the legal system by corporations and individuals with deep pockets as they enforce their will on average people by threatening to bankrupt them in court if they dare to fight back against blatantly unfair practices.
I have great respect for Ray Beckman.
We need a thousand more like him. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735541</id>
	<title>Re:Yay for Ray</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite lawyer is Judge Napolitano.</p><p>I love his daily show and how he explains the laws -  <a href="http://freedomwatchonfox.com/" title="freedomwatchonfox.com">http://freedomwatchonfox.com/</a> [freedomwatchonfox.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite lawyer is Judge Napolitano.I love his daily show and how he explains the laws - http : //freedomwatchonfox.com/ [ freedomwatchonfox.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite lawyer is Judge Napolitano.I love his daily show and how he explains the laws -  http://freedomwatchonfox.com/ [freedomwatchonfox.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734645</id>
	<title>Layman's terminology?</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1255461000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA: <p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;I&rsquo;m gratified that the motion was denied. It was based on <b>gross misstatements of fact</b>. I would have preferred for the judge&rsquo;s language to be stronger. But the result is the same,&rdquo; Beckerman said during a brief telephone interview.</p></div><p>I see. So in layman's terms, "gross misstatements of fact" means -  "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA :    I    m gratified that the motion was denied .
It was based on gross misstatements of fact .
I would have preferred for the judge    s language to be stronger .
But the result is the same ,    Beckerman said during a brief telephone interview.I see .
So in layman 's terms , " gross misstatements of fact " means - " Liar , liar , pants on fire !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: “I’m gratified that the motion was denied.
It was based on gross misstatements of fact.
I would have preferred for the judge’s language to be stronger.
But the result is the same,” Beckerman said during a brief telephone interview.I see.
So in layman's terms, "gross misstatements of fact" means -  "Liar, liar, pants on fire!
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737079</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1255428240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawyers are instruments, unilateral protagonists of the justice system. They're not the moral guardians of society, very far from that. You need to look at professionals not as humans but by their functions. Lawyers are mercenaries of justice, and by opposing two sides of lawyers and letting a judge be the referee you're supposed to get justice. And lawyers are just more efficient and less error-prone when they stay dispassionate and cool-headed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyers are instruments , unilateral protagonists of the justice system .
They 're not the moral guardians of society , very far from that .
You need to look at professionals not as humans but by their functions .
Lawyers are mercenaries of justice , and by opposing two sides of lawyers and letting a judge be the referee you 're supposed to get justice .
And lawyers are just more efficient and less error-prone when they stay dispassionate and cool-headed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyers are instruments, unilateral protagonists of the justice system.
They're not the moral guardians of society, very far from that.
You need to look at professionals not as humans but by their functions.
Lawyers are mercenaries of justice, and by opposing two sides of lawyers and letting a judge be the referee you're supposed to get justice.
And lawyers are just more efficient and less error-prone when they stay dispassionate and cool-headed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737289</id>
	<title>More accurate article: my Firehose submission</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1255428840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a more accurate and detailed article on the Magistrate Judge's decision I recommend my own Slashdot submission from last Friday, which Slashdot rejected: <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1089533/RIAAs-Sanctions-Motion-in-Lindor-Denied?art\_pos=2" title="slashdot.org">"RIAA's "Sanctions" Motion in Lindor Denied"</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a more accurate and detailed article on the Magistrate Judge 's decision I recommend my own Slashdot submission from last Friday , which Slashdot rejected : " RIAA 's " Sanctions " Motion in Lindor Denied " [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a more accurate and detailed article on the Magistrate Judge's decision I recommend my own Slashdot submission from last Friday, which Slashdot rejected: "RIAA's "Sanctions" Motion in Lindor Denied" [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735643</id>
	<title>Re:Keep it cool</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1255465740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think his focus has been all of the bad evidence, illegal third party investigators, and continuing to prosecute when the evidence suggests they are wrong.</p><p>Beckerman's job seems to be defense, not prosecutorial.  So if a client comes to him with court action in progress, I'd sure as hell prefer someone who has been watching the cases and knows what dirty tricks to expect.  Also, which cases have come before and how they turned out.</p><p>Better to watch copyright cases than be an ambulance chaser, or advertise "have you or a loved one been hurt by $DRUG?"  I think in some places lawyers are not allowed to specialize, but it pays to focus on something and be good at it.</p><p>In this case, it does look like he overstepped his bounds a little, but if you look at past cases, RIAA members constantly overstep in their pursuit of a headline-grabbing conviction.  I don't see a problem with fighting with whatever tools are available, especially when the cost of losing is financial ruin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think his focus has been all of the bad evidence , illegal third party investigators , and continuing to prosecute when the evidence suggests they are wrong.Beckerman 's job seems to be defense , not prosecutorial .
So if a client comes to him with court action in progress , I 'd sure as hell prefer someone who has been watching the cases and knows what dirty tricks to expect .
Also , which cases have come before and how they turned out.Better to watch copyright cases than be an ambulance chaser , or advertise " have you or a loved one been hurt by $ DRUG ?
" I think in some places lawyers are not allowed to specialize , but it pays to focus on something and be good at it.In this case , it does look like he overstepped his bounds a little , but if you look at past cases , RIAA members constantly overstep in their pursuit of a headline-grabbing conviction .
I do n't see a problem with fighting with whatever tools are available , especially when the cost of losing is financial ruin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think his focus has been all of the bad evidence, illegal third party investigators, and continuing to prosecute when the evidence suggests they are wrong.Beckerman's job seems to be defense, not prosecutorial.
So if a client comes to him with court action in progress, I'd sure as hell prefer someone who has been watching the cases and knows what dirty tricks to expect.
Also, which cases have come before and how they turned out.Better to watch copyright cases than be an ambulance chaser, or advertise "have you or a loved one been hurt by $DRUG?
"  I think in some places lawyers are not allowed to specialize, but it pays to focus on something and be good at it.In this case, it does look like he overstepped his bounds a little, but if you look at past cases, RIAA members constantly overstep in their pursuit of a headline-grabbing conviction.
I don't see a problem with fighting with whatever tools are available, especially when the cost of losing is financial ruin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734533</id>
	<title>who's vexatious?</title>
	<author>quercus.aeternam</author>
	<datestamp>1255460640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Levy also ruled that the RIAA, which has sued 30,000 individuals, was not a vexatious litigant, shooting down Beckerman&rsquo;s counter-complaint against his courtroom opponents.</p></div><p>As is not unusual, the editors seem to have missed the fact that NewYorkCountryLawyer is not a litigant - though they are correct in stating that the complaints against him have been dropped.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Levy also ruled that the RIAA , which has sued 30,000 individuals , was not a vexatious litigant , shooting down Beckerman    s counter-complaint against his courtroom opponents.As is not unusual , the editors seem to have missed the fact that NewYorkCountryLawyer is not a litigant - though they are correct in stating that the complaints against him have been dropped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Levy also ruled that the RIAA, which has sued 30,000 individuals, was not a vexatious litigant, shooting down Beckerman’s counter-complaint against his courtroom opponents.As is not unusual, the editors seem to have missed the fact that NewYorkCountryLawyer is not a litigant - though they are correct in stating that the complaints against him have been dropped.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735859</id>
	<title>Re:Kettle/Pot</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255466640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In psychology, that's called "projection". It's a sign that the person itself can not let any thought of his own failure into his mind, despite him knowing and hating it, for fear of breakdown of the own reality. So he/she/it starts to project his repressed self-hatred onto others, to be able to let it out.</p><p>Basically they are beyond the point of no return where they hate their own stupid decision, far into the land of fear of total breakdown on confrontation, where all you can do is run with it until the bitter end, or hope you or someone else finds a rhetoric on tactic method that lets you get out without losing all self-respect.</p><p>It's a very human thing. Nobody can stand the total loss of the own reality. Most people would rather die. Seriously. You and me most likely too.</p><p>So I guess the best thing to do here, is offer the RIAA this way out. Something where they can go "We were in panic and forced to act that way. In reality we're good, kind, and right. And look how now we're even better for changing our ways." while the rest of the world goes "Yes little RIAA, I'm proud of you for becoming even better!" while secretly smiling because we all would know what really happened, and how we were the kind-hearted ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In psychology , that 's called " projection " .
It 's a sign that the person itself can not let any thought of his own failure into his mind , despite him knowing and hating it , for fear of breakdown of the own reality .
So he/she/it starts to project his repressed self-hatred onto others , to be able to let it out.Basically they are beyond the point of no return where they hate their own stupid decision , far into the land of fear of total breakdown on confrontation , where all you can do is run with it until the bitter end , or hope you or someone else finds a rhetoric on tactic method that lets you get out without losing all self-respect.It 's a very human thing .
Nobody can stand the total loss of the own reality .
Most people would rather die .
Seriously. You and me most likely too.So I guess the best thing to do here , is offer the RIAA this way out .
Something where they can go " We were in panic and forced to act that way .
In reality we 're good , kind , and right .
And look how now we 're even better for changing our ways .
" while the rest of the world goes " Yes little RIAA , I 'm proud of you for becoming even better !
" while secretly smiling because we all would know what really happened , and how we were the kind-hearted ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In psychology, that's called "projection".
It's a sign that the person itself can not let any thought of his own failure into his mind, despite him knowing and hating it, for fear of breakdown of the own reality.
So he/she/it starts to project his repressed self-hatred onto others, to be able to let it out.Basically they are beyond the point of no return where they hate their own stupid decision, far into the land of fear of total breakdown on confrontation, where all you can do is run with it until the bitter end, or hope you or someone else finds a rhetoric on tactic method that lets you get out without losing all self-respect.It's a very human thing.
Nobody can stand the total loss of the own reality.
Most people would rather die.
Seriously. You and me most likely too.So I guess the best thing to do here, is offer the RIAA this way out.
Something where they can go "We were in panic and forced to act that way.
In reality we're good, kind, and right.
And look how now we're even better for changing our ways.
" while the rest of the world goes "Yes little RIAA, I'm proud of you for becoming even better!
" while secretly smiling because we all would know what really happened, and how we were the kind-hearted ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734669</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255461120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... welcome our vexatious, anti-RIAA blogging attorney overlords...</p><p>Congrats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... welcome our vexatious , anti-RIAA blogging attorney overlords...Congrats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... welcome our vexatious, anti-RIAA blogging attorney overlords...Congrats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734819</id>
	<title>Re:Keep it cool</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1255461780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, what?  Are you a lawyer?  More specifically, have you argued cases in front of juries?  I'll bet that class of lawyers would have a difference of opinion on the use of passion, rhetoric and emotional appeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , what ?
Are you a lawyer ?
More specifically , have you argued cases in front of juries ?
I 'll bet that class of lawyers would have a difference of opinion on the use of passion , rhetoric and emotional appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, what?
Are you a lawyer?
More specifically, have you argued cases in front of juries?
I'll bet that class of lawyers would have a difference of opinion on the use of passion, rhetoric and emotional appeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734691</id>
	<title>Re:Keep it cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255461240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.  This is not a single case, but rather a rash of cases that affects nearly everyone age 12-30, and many that are older as well.  It's going to be changing laws and attitudes, and Ray is making sure the information is out there to everyone who will listen.</p><p>He is going far beyond the duties of a simple lawyer and is actively working to make this a better country.</p><p>Whether or not you believe he is making it a better country isn't the issue, either...  -He- believes that (and so do many others) and he's working on his beliefs.</p><p>That's an admirable thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
This is not a single case , but rather a rash of cases that affects nearly everyone age 12-30 , and many that are older as well .
It 's going to be changing laws and attitudes , and Ray is making sure the information is out there to everyone who will listen.He is going far beyond the duties of a simple lawyer and is actively working to make this a better country.Whether or not you believe he is making it a better country is n't the issue , either... -He- believes that ( and so do many others ) and he 's working on his beliefs.That 's an admirable thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
This is not a single case, but rather a rash of cases that affects nearly everyone age 12-30, and many that are older as well.
It's going to be changing laws and attitudes, and Ray is making sure the information is out there to everyone who will listen.He is going far beyond the duties of a simple lawyer and is actively working to make this a better country.Whether or not you believe he is making it a better country isn't the issue, either...  -He- believes that (and so do many others) and he's working on his beliefs.That's an admirable thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735025</id>
	<title>Let me just add</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1255463040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... my congratulations to Ray. It's not every day that somebody has the courage to descend into the belly of The Beast and beard them in their own den.<p>
Ray is one of those 2\% of lawyers that the other 98\% make things bad for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... my congratulations to Ray .
It 's not every day that somebody has the courage to descend into the belly of The Beast and beard them in their own den .
Ray is one of those 2 \ % of lawyers that the other 98 \ % make things bad for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... my congratulations to Ray.
It's not every day that somebody has the courage to descend into the belly of The Beast and beard them in their own den.
Ray is one of those 2\% of lawyers that the other 98\% make things bad for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734471</id>
	<title>vexatious litigant?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255460340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the RIAA were thinking it takes one to know one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the RIAA were thinking it takes one to know one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the RIAA were thinking it takes one to know one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734911</id>
	<title>Re:Yay for Ray</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255462320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. Beckerman is my 3rd favorite lwayer, right after the lady who handled my divorce and the gentleman who handled my bankrupcy.</p><p>My fourth favorite lawyer is Lawrence Lessig. Too bad he lost that Eldred case, or most songs would be legal to share. But at least he tried.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Beckerman is my 3rd favorite lwayer , right after the lady who handled my divorce and the gentleman who handled my bankrupcy.My fourth favorite lawyer is Lawrence Lessig .
Too bad he lost that Eldred case , or most songs would be legal to share .
But at least he tried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Beckerman is my 3rd favorite lwayer, right after the lady who handled my divorce and the gentleman who handled my bankrupcy.My fourth favorite lawyer is Lawrence Lessig.
Too bad he lost that Eldred case, or most songs would be legal to share.
But at least he tried.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737973</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1255431480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/13/staples\_libel\_ruling\_concerns\_news\_media\_groups/" title="boston.com">In Massachusetts, truth is not the ultimate defense against libel."</a> [boston.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Massachusetts , truth is not the ultimate defense against libel .
" [ boston.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Massachusetts, truth is not the ultimate defense against libel.
" [boston.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29740655</id>
	<title>soooo...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255450140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should I be worried about posting anti RIAA messages on slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should I be worried about posting anti RIAA messages on slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should I be worried about posting anti RIAA messages on slashdot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735229</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>debrain</author>
	<datestamp>1255464000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Excuse me IANAL, but isn't the truth never libelous? Even opinion is supposed to receive the utmost protection. Libel is reserved for those know knowingly lie simply to inflict harm. I mean sure the RIAA doesn't agree with Ray's angle, but since when is well stated opinion backed by dozens of sources, and agreed upon by pretty much everybody who isn't a RIAA fascist suddenly become illegal to share? Thank god the judge dismissed it, but the fact that he didn't slap them in hard for trying to silence a critic makes me understand why in the eyes of the law, we the people are fucked.</p></div><p>I recall there being a number of philosophical thoughts on the relationship between libel and truth. The first I recall is that in general libel is any written statement that causes harm. You can claim for damages from libel anyone who makes a statement that causes harm. However, if the written statement was true, that is a complete defence to claims for libel.</p><p>The second school of thought I recall is that libel is any untrue statement that causes harm. Therefore you can only claim for damages where the written statements cause harm and the statements were untrue.</p><p>In the first scenario one can sue for any harm by way of written statements, and the defendant may allege as a defence (and must prove) that they were true statements. In the second scenario one can only sue for untrue statements and must show that the harmful statements were untrue. In other words, the onus of bearing the burden of proof shifts and the type of allegations change.</p><p>In both these cases, true statements prevent you from being responsible in law for damages resulting from the written statements - but through different legal mechanisms. There are other schools of thought, however, and your mileage may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - there are places where the truth is not a defence, particularly if that truth was gotten through deceit or in violation of privacy laws. There are more differences between the two schools of thought above, and the differences are subtle, but they can have significant effects procedurally and practically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me IANAL , but is n't the truth never libelous ?
Even opinion is supposed to receive the utmost protection .
Libel is reserved for those know knowingly lie simply to inflict harm .
I mean sure the RIAA does n't agree with Ray 's angle , but since when is well stated opinion backed by dozens of sources , and agreed upon by pretty much everybody who is n't a RIAA fascist suddenly become illegal to share ?
Thank god the judge dismissed it , but the fact that he did n't slap them in hard for trying to silence a critic makes me understand why in the eyes of the law , we the people are fucked.I recall there being a number of philosophical thoughts on the relationship between libel and truth .
The first I recall is that in general libel is any written statement that causes harm .
You can claim for damages from libel anyone who makes a statement that causes harm .
However , if the written statement was true , that is a complete defence to claims for libel.The second school of thought I recall is that libel is any untrue statement that causes harm .
Therefore you can only claim for damages where the written statements cause harm and the statements were untrue.In the first scenario one can sue for any harm by way of written statements , and the defendant may allege as a defence ( and must prove ) that they were true statements .
In the second scenario one can only sue for untrue statements and must show that the harmful statements were untrue .
In other words , the onus of bearing the burden of proof shifts and the type of allegations change.In both these cases , true statements prevent you from being responsible in law for damages resulting from the written statements - but through different legal mechanisms .
There are other schools of thought , however , and your mileage may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - there are places where the truth is not a defence , particularly if that truth was gotten through deceit or in violation of privacy laws .
There are more differences between the two schools of thought above , and the differences are subtle , but they can have significant effects procedurally and practically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me IANAL, but isn't the truth never libelous?
Even opinion is supposed to receive the utmost protection.
Libel is reserved for those know knowingly lie simply to inflict harm.
I mean sure the RIAA doesn't agree with Ray's angle, but since when is well stated opinion backed by dozens of sources, and agreed upon by pretty much everybody who isn't a RIAA fascist suddenly become illegal to share?
Thank god the judge dismissed it, but the fact that he didn't slap them in hard for trying to silence a critic makes me understand why in the eyes of the law, we the people are fucked.I recall there being a number of philosophical thoughts on the relationship between libel and truth.
The first I recall is that in general libel is any written statement that causes harm.
You can claim for damages from libel anyone who makes a statement that causes harm.
However, if the written statement was true, that is a complete defence to claims for libel.The second school of thought I recall is that libel is any untrue statement that causes harm.
Therefore you can only claim for damages where the written statements cause harm and the statements were untrue.In the first scenario one can sue for any harm by way of written statements, and the defendant may allege as a defence (and must prove) that they were true statements.
In the second scenario one can only sue for untrue statements and must show that the harmful statements were untrue.
In other words, the onus of bearing the burden of proof shifts and the type of allegations change.In both these cases, true statements prevent you from being responsible in law for damages resulting from the written statements - but through different legal mechanisms.
There are other schools of thought, however, and your mileage may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - there are places where the truth is not a defence, particularly if that truth was gotten through deceit or in violation of privacy laws.
There are more differences between the two schools of thought above, and the differences are subtle, but they can have significant effects procedurally and practically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734555</id>
	<title>Keep it cool</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1255460640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay for him, but may he beware of being too passionate and involved into what he defends/attacks. Lawyering is best served cold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay for him , but may he beware of being too passionate and involved into what he defends/attacks .
Lawyering is best served cold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay for him, but may he beware of being too passionate and involved into what he defends/attacks.
Lawyering is best served cold.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737259</id>
	<title>YOU FAIL IT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">into a sling unless project.  Today, as just yet, but I'm need to scream that another troubled 8parts. The cuurent</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>into a sling unless project .
Today , as just yet , but I 'm need to scream that another troubled 8parts .
The cuurent [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>into a sling unless project.
Today, as just yet, but I'm need to scream that another troubled 8parts.
The cuurent [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29738817</id>
	<title>Re:About Time</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1255435560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What we need even more is to remove the notion that you can file a frivolous lawsuit and simply win it by outspending the defendant.</p><p>Moving the US to a loser pays system would give the hapless and helpless "we the people" incentive to stand and fight instead of rolling over.</p><p>As it stands now, corporations are kings.  They know that if you do something they don't like, all they have to do is squash you like a bug under a big fat lawsuit, and the law be damned.  The only reason they don't treat EACH OTHER like that is they know they'd be in for a huge fight in court and they'd only be able to win on merit, so in the corporate world companies tend to pick their battles.</p><p>People cannot afford to defend themselves.  Which means that, today, the legal landscape is full of nothing but "might makes right" akin to the middle ages of warfare where who won was determined by whoever had the biggest and baddest army, merit and fitness to rule be damned.  And since currently you have to pay through the nose to defend yourself even if you are innocent, it's better for you to roll over and cough up whatever they ask for.</p><p>This is, indeed, a protection racket.  Instead of "pay or die" it's "pay or go bankrupt".  And the best part of it is that forcing someone to spend money on laywers isn't illegal so it isn't considered extortion!</p><p>Going to a loser pays system would allow people to stand and fight without fear, knowing that they'd be saved in the end when they're legal bills are refunded.  And for those who are too poor to hire their own defense, having "everlast refundable dollars" to finance a defense would let folks like the EFF and like to throw their full weight in support of the innocent.</p><p>I am curious what NYCL thinks about "loser pays" though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need even more is to remove the notion that you can file a frivolous lawsuit and simply win it by outspending the defendant.Moving the US to a loser pays system would give the hapless and helpless " we the people " incentive to stand and fight instead of rolling over.As it stands now , corporations are kings .
They know that if you do something they do n't like , all they have to do is squash you like a bug under a big fat lawsuit , and the law be damned .
The only reason they do n't treat EACH OTHER like that is they know they 'd be in for a huge fight in court and they 'd only be able to win on merit , so in the corporate world companies tend to pick their battles.People can not afford to defend themselves .
Which means that , today , the legal landscape is full of nothing but " might makes right " akin to the middle ages of warfare where who won was determined by whoever had the biggest and baddest army , merit and fitness to rule be damned .
And since currently you have to pay through the nose to defend yourself even if you are innocent , it 's better for you to roll over and cough up whatever they ask for.This is , indeed , a protection racket .
Instead of " pay or die " it 's " pay or go bankrupt " .
And the best part of it is that forcing someone to spend money on laywers is n't illegal so it is n't considered extortion ! Going to a loser pays system would allow people to stand and fight without fear , knowing that they 'd be saved in the end when they 're legal bills are refunded .
And for those who are too poor to hire their own defense , having " everlast refundable dollars " to finance a defense would let folks like the EFF and like to throw their full weight in support of the innocent.I am curious what NYCL thinks about " loser pays " though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need even more is to remove the notion that you can file a frivolous lawsuit and simply win it by outspending the defendant.Moving the US to a loser pays system would give the hapless and helpless "we the people" incentive to stand and fight instead of rolling over.As it stands now, corporations are kings.
They know that if you do something they don't like, all they have to do is squash you like a bug under a big fat lawsuit, and the law be damned.
The only reason they don't treat EACH OTHER like that is they know they'd be in for a huge fight in court and they'd only be able to win on merit, so in the corporate world companies tend to pick their battles.People cannot afford to defend themselves.
Which means that, today, the legal landscape is full of nothing but "might makes right" akin to the middle ages of warfare where who won was determined by whoever had the biggest and baddest army, merit and fitness to rule be damned.
And since currently you have to pay through the nose to defend yourself even if you are innocent, it's better for you to roll over and cough up whatever they ask for.This is, indeed, a protection racket.
Instead of "pay or die" it's "pay or go bankrupt".
And the best part of it is that forcing someone to spend money on laywers isn't illegal so it isn't considered extortion!Going to a loser pays system would allow people to stand and fight without fear, knowing that they'd be saved in the end when they're legal bills are refunded.
And for those who are too poor to hire their own defense, having "everlast refundable dollars" to finance a defense would let folks like the EFF and like to throw their full weight in support of the innocent.I am curious what NYCL thinks about "loser pays" though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734545</id>
	<title>Kettle/Pot</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1255460640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>The RIAA claimed that Lindor, her family and Beckerman "intentionally provided false information, attempted to misdirect plaintiffs as to relevant facts and events, and concealed critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue."</b></p><p>In other words, the RIAA accuses an opposing attorney of doing the very things that the RIAA does all the time.  Shocking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA claimed that Lindor , her family and Beckerman " intentionally provided false information , attempted to misdirect plaintiffs as to relevant facts and events , and concealed critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue .
" In other words , the RIAA accuses an opposing attorney of doing the very things that the RIAA does all the time .
Shocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA claimed that Lindor, her family and Beckerman "intentionally provided false information, attempted to misdirect plaintiffs as to relevant facts and events, and concealed critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue.
"In other words, the RIAA accuses an opposing attorney of doing the very things that the RIAA does all the time.
Shocking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734885</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1255462140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Excuse me IANAL, but isn't the truth never libelous? Even opinion is supposed to receive the utmost protection. Libel is reserved for those know knowingly lie simply to inflict harm. I mean sure the RIAA doesn't agree with Ray's angle, but since when is well stated opinion backed by dozens of sources, and agreed upon by pretty much everybody who isn't a RIAA fascist suddenly become illegal to share? Thank god the judge dismissed it, but the fact that he didn't slap them in hard for trying to silence a critic makes me understand why in the eyes of the law, we the people are fucked.</p></div><p>Part of the reason that the judge didn't slap the RIAA hard is because Ray was (is?) in court opposing the RIAA. When one is in litigation (whether as one of the litigants or as one of their lawyers) there are legal limits about what one is allowed to say about the case. Those limits vary from case to case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me IANAL , but is n't the truth never libelous ?
Even opinion is supposed to receive the utmost protection .
Libel is reserved for those know knowingly lie simply to inflict harm .
I mean sure the RIAA does n't agree with Ray 's angle , but since when is well stated opinion backed by dozens of sources , and agreed upon by pretty much everybody who is n't a RIAA fascist suddenly become illegal to share ?
Thank god the judge dismissed it , but the fact that he did n't slap them in hard for trying to silence a critic makes me understand why in the eyes of the law , we the people are fucked.Part of the reason that the judge did n't slap the RIAA hard is because Ray was ( is ?
) in court opposing the RIAA .
When one is in litigation ( whether as one of the litigants or as one of their lawyers ) there are legal limits about what one is allowed to say about the case .
Those limits vary from case to case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me IANAL, but isn't the truth never libelous?
Even opinion is supposed to receive the utmost protection.
Libel is reserved for those know knowingly lie simply to inflict harm.
I mean sure the RIAA doesn't agree with Ray's angle, but since when is well stated opinion backed by dozens of sources, and agreed upon by pretty much everybody who isn't a RIAA fascist suddenly become illegal to share?
Thank god the judge dismissed it, but the fact that he didn't slap them in hard for trying to silence a critic makes me understand why in the eyes of the law, we the people are fucked.Part of the reason that the judge didn't slap the RIAA hard is because Ray was (is?
) in court opposing the RIAA.
When one is in litigation (whether as one of the litigants or as one of their lawyers) there are legal limits about what one is allowed to say about the case.
Those limits vary from case to case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734763</id>
	<title>WTF</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1255461600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excuse me IANAL, but isn't the truth never libelous? Even opinion is supposed to receive the utmost protection. Libel is reserved for those know knowingly lie simply to inflict harm. I mean sure the RIAA doesn't agree with Ray's angle, but since when is well stated opinion backed by dozens of sources, and agreed upon by pretty much everybody who isn't a RIAA fascist suddenly become illegal to share? Thank god the judge dismissed it, but the fact that he didn't slap them in hard for trying to silence a critic makes me understand why in the eyes of the law, we the people are fucked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me IANAL , but is n't the truth never libelous ?
Even opinion is supposed to receive the utmost protection .
Libel is reserved for those know knowingly lie simply to inflict harm .
I mean sure the RIAA does n't agree with Ray 's angle , but since when is well stated opinion backed by dozens of sources , and agreed upon by pretty much everybody who is n't a RIAA fascist suddenly become illegal to share ?
Thank god the judge dismissed it , but the fact that he did n't slap them in hard for trying to silence a critic makes me understand why in the eyes of the law , we the people are fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me IANAL, but isn't the truth never libelous?
Even opinion is supposed to receive the utmost protection.
Libel is reserved for those know knowingly lie simply to inflict harm.
I mean sure the RIAA doesn't agree with Ray's angle, but since when is well stated opinion backed by dozens of sources, and agreed upon by pretty much everybody who isn't a RIAA fascist suddenly become illegal to share?
Thank god the judge dismissed it, but the fact that he didn't slap them in hard for trying to silence a critic makes me understand why in the eyes of the law, we the people are fucked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735443</id>
	<title>Re:Yay for Ray</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>get real. NYCL is a third rate blogger who panders to the 'copyright is eviL!" children here at slashdot to drive up ad impressions on his sub-geocities crapware blog.</p><p>I bet the moron has never even won a single case. he knows fuck all, except how to pander to thieves and the ignorant linux loving retards at slashpirate</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>get real .
NYCL is a third rate blogger who panders to the 'copyright is eviL !
" children here at slashdot to drive up ad impressions on his sub-geocities crapware blog.I bet the moron has never even won a single case .
he knows fuck all , except how to pander to thieves and the ignorant linux loving retards at slashpirate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get real.
NYCL is a third rate blogger who panders to the 'copyright is eviL!
" children here at slashdot to drive up ad impressions on his sub-geocities crapware blog.I bet the moron has never even won a single case.
he knows fuck all, except how to pander to thieves and the ignorant linux loving retards at slashpirate</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734861</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1255462020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Lawyering is best served cold.</p></div><p>Sorry but that is exactly the line of thought that is letting (most of) the lawyers destroy our society. Take the RIAA, if their lawyers had souls and weren't just cold bastards they would refuse to sue grannies for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Wouldn't society be better without these moral-free lawyers? It can be an honorable job as Ray proves, but lets not forget that he is the minority in his profession from what I can tell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyering is best served cold.Sorry but that is exactly the line of thought that is letting ( most of ) the lawyers destroy our society .
Take the RIAA , if their lawyers had souls and were n't just cold bastards they would refuse to sue grannies for hundreds of thousands of dollars .
Would n't society be better without these moral-free lawyers ?
It can be an honorable job as Ray proves , but lets not forget that he is the minority in his profession from what I can tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Lawyering is best served cold.Sorry but that is exactly the line of thought that is letting (most of) the lawyers destroy our society.
Take the RIAA, if their lawyers had souls and weren't just cold bastards they would refuse to sue grannies for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Wouldn't society be better without these moral-free lawyers?
It can be an honorable job as Ray proves, but lets not forget that he is the minority in his profession from what I can tell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29741585</id>
	<title>Any publicity is good publicity!</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1255462020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep up the good fight, Ray!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep up the good fight , Ray !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep up the good fight, Ray!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734577</id>
	<title>Wow, freedom of expression?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255460700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must have missed this one. The RIAA really  requested monetary sanctions for a piracy defense lawyer who blogged about disliking the RIAA?</p><p>Holy shit, recording industry, this is getting out of control. You're supposed to be evil but it's supposed to be Disney evil or James Bond villain evil. This is closer to frothing tyrannical dictator evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must have missed this one .
The RIAA really requested monetary sanctions for a piracy defense lawyer who blogged about disliking the RIAA ? Holy shit , recording industry , this is getting out of control .
You 're supposed to be evil but it 's supposed to be Disney evil or James Bond villain evil .
This is closer to frothing tyrannical dictator evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must have missed this one.
The RIAA really  requested monetary sanctions for a piracy defense lawyer who blogged about disliking the RIAA?Holy shit, recording industry, this is getting out of control.
You're supposed to be evil but it's supposed to be Disney evil or James Bond villain evil.
This is closer to frothing tyrannical dictator evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737285</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA's CEO is a tyrant</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1255428840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>RIAA's CEO deserves the same fate as Mussolini of Italy, or King Louis of France, or Emperor Nero of Rome - all tyrants - all meeting the same fate.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wouldn't matter.  You could shoot him and abuse his body, guillotine him, or drive him to suicide with his letter opener, and the next RIAA CEO would continue in the same vein (only with better security).  It's the organization which needs to be destroyed, not any individual head of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA 's CEO deserves the same fate as Mussolini of Italy , or King Louis of France , or Emperor Nero of Rome - all tyrants - all meeting the same fate.Would n't matter .
You could shoot him and abuse his body , guillotine him , or drive him to suicide with his letter opener , and the next RIAA CEO would continue in the same vein ( only with better security ) .
It 's the organization which needs to be destroyed , not any individual head of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA's CEO deserves the same fate as Mussolini of Italy, or King Louis of France, or Emperor Nero of Rome - all tyrants - all meeting the same fate.Wouldn't matter.
You could shoot him and abuse his body, guillotine him, or drive him to suicide with his letter opener, and the next RIAA CEO would continue in the same vein (only with better security).
It's the organization which needs to be destroyed, not any individual head of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29738413</id>
	<title>Re:More accurate article: my Firehose submission</title>
	<author>Barny</author>
	<datestamp>1255433340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The request to impose sanctions reminds me too much of scooby-do:</p><p>"we would have won too if it wasn't for those meddling kids!"</p><p>Forget that it was evidence grounded in fact, that they themselves would have happily used a bias (were one to exist) and that they themselves have created such bias in the past with "expert" witnesses and creative information gathering (yeah, I read the full transcripts posted way-back-when of so called expert witnesses).</p><p>Good luck with future cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The request to impose sanctions reminds me too much of scooby-do : " we would have won too if it was n't for those meddling kids !
" Forget that it was evidence grounded in fact , that they themselves would have happily used a bias ( were one to exist ) and that they themselves have created such bias in the past with " expert " witnesses and creative information gathering ( yeah , I read the full transcripts posted way-back-when of so called expert witnesses ) .Good luck with future cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The request to impose sanctions reminds me too much of scooby-do:"we would have won too if it wasn't for those meddling kids!
"Forget that it was evidence grounded in fact, that they themselves would have happily used a bias (were one to exist) and that they themselves have created such bias in the past with "expert" witnesses and creative information gathering (yeah, I read the full transcripts posted way-back-when of so called expert witnesses).Good luck with future cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735265</id>
	<title>Re:Keep it cool</title>
	<author>drspliff</author>
	<datestamp>1255464120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Lawyering is best served cold.</p><p>I whole heatedly agree, the best lawyers are dead ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Lawyering is best served cold.I whole heatedly agree , the best lawyers are dead ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Lawyering is best served cold.I whole heatedly agree, the best lawyers are dead ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29736937</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, freedom of expression?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> You're supposed to be evil but it's supposed to be Disney evil or James Bond villain evil. This is closer to frothing tyrannical dictator evil.</p></div><p>The word you're looking for is either "Machiavellian" or "Draconian".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're supposed to be evil but it 's supposed to be Disney evil or James Bond villain evil .
This is closer to frothing tyrannical dictator evil.The word you 're looking for is either " Machiavellian " or " Draconian " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You're supposed to be evil but it's supposed to be Disney evil or James Bond villain evil.
This is closer to frothing tyrannical dictator evil.The word you're looking for is either "Machiavellian" or "Draconian".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735149</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1255463640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because there is no such thing as "absolute truth"  in a legal courtroom. (See also: justice, fairness, equality, and common sense.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there is no such thing as " absolute truth " in a legal courtroom .
( See also : justice , fairness , equality , and common sense .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there is no such thing as "absolute truth"  in a legal courtroom.
(See also: justice, fairness, equality, and common sense.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737107</id>
	<title>No claims of deft dismissed</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1255428300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand the statement that some "counterclaim" was dismissed.

The defendant did not have any counterclaims.

She did make a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against the RIAA's attorneys.

That motion is still pending.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand the statement that some " counterclaim " was dismissed .
The defendant did not have any counterclaims .
She did make a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against the RIAA 's attorneys .
That motion is still pending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand the statement that some "counterclaim" was dismissed.
The defendant did not have any counterclaims.
She did make a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against the RIAA's attorneys.
That motion is still pending.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734945</id>
	<title>Re:Yay for Ray</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1255462500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He knows his stuff.  In the long run truth will prevail!</p><p>Way To Go Ray!</p><p>E</p></div><p>A big leap for humanity, a small step back for the <a href="http://www.riaa.com/" title="riaa.com">thieves of <i>your</i> culture.</a> [riaa.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He knows his stuff .
In the long run truth will prevail ! Way To Go Ray ! EA big leap for humanity , a small step back for the thieves of your culture .
[ riaa.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He knows his stuff.
In the long run truth will prevail!Way To Go Ray!EA big leap for humanity, a small step back for the thieves of your culture.
[riaa.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737143</id>
	<title>Re:Keep it cool</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1255428360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>None of these things require to actually feel them. It's just an act, and something a good lawyer has to master. Let me guess, you probably think that Keith Olbermann is always genuinely as outraged as he acts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of these things require to actually feel them .
It 's just an act , and something a good lawyer has to master .
Let me guess , you probably think that Keith Olbermann is always genuinely as outraged as he acts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of these things require to actually feel them.
It's just an act, and something a good lawyer has to master.
Let me guess, you probably think that Keith Olbermann is always genuinely as outraged as he acts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737639</id>
	<title>Re:RIAA's CEO is a tyrant</title>
	<author>Schmorgluck</author>
	<datestamp>1255430220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm happy they lost, but a lawyer commenting on a judicial process they're involved in as counsel has both special leniencies and special limitations to what he's allowed to say, compared to an ordinary citizen. I'm not shocked the courts found it worth examination.</p><p>Since you mention Louis of France, and assuming you mean Louis XVI, it's a bit excessive to call him a tyrant. He held far less power than his predecessors, and genuinely attempted to reform France but failed mostly because of his lack of authority over French aristocracy. He wasn't either the idiot some depict, he just hadn't much political skill, and was more interested in sciences and technology than in politics. If anything, Louis XV was far worse, despite all the flamboyance of his reign. Louis XVI certainly lacked the ability to adapt to the changes of his time, but he wasn't insensitive to the ideal of liberty. If his support to the American independance had been only motivated by a geostrategic agenda, he wouldn't have needed La Fayette to convince him to go for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm happy they lost , but a lawyer commenting on a judicial process they 're involved in as counsel has both special leniencies and special limitations to what he 's allowed to say , compared to an ordinary citizen .
I 'm not shocked the courts found it worth examination.Since you mention Louis of France , and assuming you mean Louis XVI , it 's a bit excessive to call him a tyrant .
He held far less power than his predecessors , and genuinely attempted to reform France but failed mostly because of his lack of authority over French aristocracy .
He was n't either the idiot some depict , he just had n't much political skill , and was more interested in sciences and technology than in politics .
If anything , Louis XV was far worse , despite all the flamboyance of his reign .
Louis XVI certainly lacked the ability to adapt to the changes of his time , but he was n't insensitive to the ideal of liberty .
If his support to the American independance had been only motivated by a geostrategic agenda , he would n't have needed La Fayette to convince him to go for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm happy they lost, but a lawyer commenting on a judicial process they're involved in as counsel has both special leniencies and special limitations to what he's allowed to say, compared to an ordinary citizen.
I'm not shocked the courts found it worth examination.Since you mention Louis of France, and assuming you mean Louis XVI, it's a bit excessive to call him a tyrant.
He held far less power than his predecessors, and genuinely attempted to reform France but failed mostly because of his lack of authority over French aristocracy.
He wasn't either the idiot some depict, he just hadn't much political skill, and was more interested in sciences and technology than in politics.
If anything, Louis XV was far worse, despite all the flamboyance of his reign.
Louis XVI certainly lacked the ability to adapt to the changes of his time, but he wasn't insensitive to the ideal of liberty.
If his support to the American independance had been only motivated by a geostrategic agenda, he wouldn't have needed La Fayette to convince him to go for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29736453</id>
	<title>We're losing our most basic human rights!</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1255425960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've lost Habeas corpus, free assembly, freedom of association, freedom of speech, keep &amp; bear arms.  Look around, listen to public and "free speech" radio, talk to your more erudite friends about the post 911 expansion of government powers and see if it's not true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've lost Habeas corpus , free assembly , freedom of association , freedom of speech , keep &amp; bear arms .
Look around , listen to public and " free speech " radio , talk to your more erudite friends about the post 911 expansion of government powers and see if it 's not true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've lost Habeas corpus, free assembly, freedom of association, freedom of speech, keep &amp; bear arms.
Look around, listen to public and "free speech" radio, talk to your more erudite friends about the post 911 expansion of government powers and see if it's not true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734895</id>
	<title>Re:I am shocked!</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1255462200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the exaggeration by RIAA's lawyers what got Ray to start the blog in the first place? I think this is a situation of life imitating art gone full circle with the bonus of proving the starting point in the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the exaggeration by RIAA 's lawyers what got Ray to start the blog in the first place ?
I think this is a situation of life imitating art gone full circle with the bonus of proving the starting point in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the exaggeration by RIAA's lawyers what got Ray to start the blog in the first place?
I think this is a situation of life imitating art gone full circle with the bonus of proving the starting point in the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734793</id>
	<title>Go get EM RAY</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1255461720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good Luck. Nice to see those that take on the evil and can win at least a battle (hopefully, the war).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good Luck .
Nice to see those that take on the evil and can win at least a battle ( hopefully , the war ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good Luck.
Nice to see those that take on the evil and can win at least a battle (hopefully, the war).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737095</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truth is no longer an absolute defense against libel in the U.S. anymore either:</p><p><a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/" title="niemanlab.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/</a> [niemanlab.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth is no longer an absolute defense against libel in the U.S. anymore either : http : //www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/ [ niemanlab.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth is no longer an absolute defense against libel in the U.S. anymore either:http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/ [niemanlab.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735589</id>
	<title>RIAA's CEO is a tyrant</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1255465560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe they would bring a case like this.  Or that they send-out fear-inducing "Pay us $5000 or we'll drag you to court for millions in fines" extortionate letters.</p><p>RIAA's CEO deserves the same fate as Mussolini of Italy, or King Louis of France, or Emperor Nero of Rome - all tyrants - all meeting the same fate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe they would bring a case like this .
Or that they send-out fear-inducing " Pay us $ 5000 or we 'll drag you to court for millions in fines " extortionate letters.RIAA 's CEO deserves the same fate as Mussolini of Italy , or King Louis of France , or Emperor Nero of Rome - all tyrants - all meeting the same fate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe they would bring a case like this.
Or that they send-out fear-inducing "Pay us $5000 or we'll drag you to court for millions in fines" extortionate letters.RIAA's CEO deserves the same fate as Mussolini of Italy, or King Louis of France, or Emperor Nero of Rome - all tyrants - all meeting the same fate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29738213</id>
	<title>Praise for NYCL</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1255432560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's a competent attorney, and knows better than any of the laymen here what the risks are of the choices he makes. But there's something very special happening here; knowing the risks and facing a huge and implacable enemy he's sticking fairly closely to the path of truth - even though it may be expensive or uncomfortable to him.<p>
He can see the true outlines of the questions being decided - and they're much more important than many of the commentators here may imagine. It's not solely about protecting some pirate from having to pay for their downloads - it's also about the music cartel and if they should be allowed to exert total control over the production and distribution of music. While we've been snoozing they've carved out a legal niche where they crouch and work out ways to take even more control for themselves.</p><p>
Those cartel members are full of self-importance and those stories you hear about "pay per play" or putting independent outlets out of business aren't bedtime stories - these are things the cartel wants and they'll get them and more if nobody stands up to oppose them. Those who think that downloading a few more tunes will make a difference are fooling themselves; they're playing the cartel's game.</p><p>
It's OK if most of the folks stick to their nice soft beds and don't get involved in important social problems like this one. But we need a few who will - NYCL is one, who else will stand up and fight for the truth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a competent attorney , and knows better than any of the laymen here what the risks are of the choices he makes .
But there 's something very special happening here ; knowing the risks and facing a huge and implacable enemy he 's sticking fairly closely to the path of truth - even though it may be expensive or uncomfortable to him .
He can see the true outlines of the questions being decided - and they 're much more important than many of the commentators here may imagine .
It 's not solely about protecting some pirate from having to pay for their downloads - it 's also about the music cartel and if they should be allowed to exert total control over the production and distribution of music .
While we 've been snoozing they 've carved out a legal niche where they crouch and work out ways to take even more control for themselves .
Those cartel members are full of self-importance and those stories you hear about " pay per play " or putting independent outlets out of business are n't bedtime stories - these are things the cartel wants and they 'll get them and more if nobody stands up to oppose them .
Those who think that downloading a few more tunes will make a difference are fooling themselves ; they 're playing the cartel 's game .
It 's OK if most of the folks stick to their nice soft beds and do n't get involved in important social problems like this one .
But we need a few who will - NYCL is one , who else will stand up and fight for the truth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a competent attorney, and knows better than any of the laymen here what the risks are of the choices he makes.
But there's something very special happening here; knowing the risks and facing a huge and implacable enemy he's sticking fairly closely to the path of truth - even though it may be expensive or uncomfortable to him.
He can see the true outlines of the questions being decided - and they're much more important than many of the commentators here may imagine.
It's not solely about protecting some pirate from having to pay for their downloads - it's also about the music cartel and if they should be allowed to exert total control over the production and distribution of music.
While we've been snoozing they've carved out a legal niche where they crouch and work out ways to take even more control for themselves.
Those cartel members are full of self-importance and those stories you hear about "pay per play" or putting independent outlets out of business aren't bedtime stories - these are things the cartel wants and they'll get them and more if nobody stands up to oppose them.
Those who think that downloading a few more tunes will make a difference are fooling themselves; they're playing the cartel's game.
It's OK if most of the folks stick to their nice soft beds and don't get involved in important social problems like this one.
But we need a few who will - NYCL is one, who else will stand up and fight for the truth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735073</id>
	<title>Harassing or Annoying the Defendant</title>
	<author>twmcneil</author>
	<datestamp>1255463280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"The question is not whether the court approves of the plaintiff's litigation tactics, but whether the plaintiff acted for the purpose of harassing or annoying the defendant."...  "Plaintiffs have doggedly pursued their copyright infringement claim, but I find no evidence of undue vexatiousness or ill motive on their part."</p></div></blockquote><p>Hello!  That's exactly what they are doing. Chasing after other family members not a party to the action and trying over and over to find the existence some magical external drive.<br> <br>Summary sucks as usual but I think NYCL got a bit of the shaft on this one.<br> <br>Keep up the good work Ray.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The question is not whether the court approves of the plaintiff 's litigation tactics , but whether the plaintiff acted for the purpose of harassing or annoying the defendant. " .. .
" Plaintiffs have doggedly pursued their copyright infringement claim , but I find no evidence of undue vexatiousness or ill motive on their part. " Hello !
That 's exactly what they are doing .
Chasing after other family members not a party to the action and trying over and over to find the existence some magical external drive .
Summary sucks as usual but I think NYCL got a bit of the shaft on this one .
Keep up the good work Ray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The question is not whether the court approves of the plaintiff's litigation tactics, but whether the plaintiff acted for the purpose of harassing or annoying the defendant."...
"Plaintiffs have doggedly pursued their copyright infringement claim, but I find no evidence of undue vexatiousness or ill motive on their part."Hello!
That's exactly what they are doing.
Chasing after other family members not a party to the action and trying over and over to find the existence some magical external drive.
Summary sucks as usual but I think NYCL got a bit of the shaft on this one.
Keep up the good work Ray.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734465</id>
	<title>Yay for Ray</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255460340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>He knows his stuff.  In the long run truth will prevail!
<p>
Way To Go Ray!
</p><p>
E</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He knows his stuff .
In the long run truth will prevail !
Way To Go Ray !
E</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He knows his stuff.
In the long run truth will prevail!
Way To Go Ray!
E</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734497</id>
	<title>I am shocked!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1255460460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>the music industry's concerns were 'largely overstated,'</i> What?!? RIAA lawyers exagerating? That is certainly a first!</htmltext>
<tokenext>the music industry 's concerns were 'largely overstated, ' What ? ! ?
RIAA lawyers exagerating ?
That is certainly a first !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the music industry's concerns were 'largely overstated,' What?!?
RIAA lawyers exagerating?
That is certainly a first!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734637</id>
	<title>Re:vexatious litigant?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1255461000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, parts of the judge's statement sounds familiar.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;...took an unusually aggressive stance and, at times, veered into hyperbole and gratuitous attacks on the recording industry as a whole...&rdquo;</p></div><p>Take out the "the recording industry" and put in "music fans" and it applies to the the RIAA.  Actually, that would be an understatement.</p><p>The RIAAs statement:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The RIAA, in seeking sanctions, said Beckerman &ldquo;has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs,&rdquo; the RIAA wrote in court briefs. &ldquo;Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions.&rdquo;</p></div><p>If they were talking about their anti-consumer lobbying instead of anti-recording industry blog and abusive lawsuits instead of blog postings, it would apply to them.  Demeans the integirty of judicial proceedings?  Jesus, they're using them to try to bully people to keep supporting their exploitative buisiness practices.  A blog post, even if it were -actually- just plain mean and biased, does nothing to cheapen our courts compared to suing individuals because you haven't adapted to current technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , parts of the judge 's statement sounds familiar.    ...took an unusually aggressive stance and , at times , veered into hyperbole and gratuitous attacks on the recording industry as a whole...    Take out the " the recording industry " and put in " music fans " and it applies to the the RIAA .
Actually , that would be an understatement.The RIAAs statement : The RIAA , in seeking sanctions , said Beckerman    has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs ,    the RIAA wrote in court briefs .
   Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions.    If they were talking about their anti-consumer lobbying instead of anti-recording industry blog and abusive lawsuits instead of blog postings , it would apply to them .
Demeans the integirty of judicial proceedings ?
Jesus , they 're using them to try to bully people to keep supporting their exploitative buisiness practices .
A blog post , even if it were -actually- just plain mean and biased , does nothing to cheapen our courts compared to suing individuals because you have n't adapted to current technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, parts of the judge's statement sounds familiar.“...took an unusually aggressive stance and, at times, veered into hyperbole and gratuitous attacks on the recording industry as a whole...”Take out the "the recording industry" and put in "music fans" and it applies to the the RIAA.
Actually, that would be an understatement.The RIAAs statement:The RIAA, in seeking sanctions, said Beckerman “has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs,” the RIAA wrote in court briefs.
“Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions.”If they were talking about their anti-consumer lobbying instead of anti-recording industry blog and abusive lawsuits instead of blog postings, it would apply to them.
Demeans the integirty of judicial proceedings?
Jesus, they're using them to try to bully people to keep supporting their exploitative buisiness practices.
A blog post, even if it were -actually- just plain mean and biased, does nothing to cheapen our courts compared to suing individuals because you haven't adapted to current technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734471</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29741011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29736137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29738413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29736937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29738817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1755249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29741011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29736937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734861
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734691
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29736137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29736453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29738413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735859
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735589
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737639
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29738213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29738817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1755249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29737973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29735229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1755249.29734885
</commentlist>
</conversation>
