<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_24_1153215</id>
	<title>Music Rights Holders Sue YouTube Again</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256390220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bennyboy64 writes <i>"NewTeeVee reports on <a href="http://newteevee.com/2009/10/23/achtung-criminal-investigation-against-youtube-underway-in-germany/">a criminal investigation that has been launched against senior executives of YouTube</a> and parent company Google in Hamburg, Germany over allegations of copyright infringement. The case started after a complaint was filed by German music rights holders. Hamburg's prosecutor has formally requested assistance from US colleagues to compel YouTube to produce log files identifying who uploaded as well as who viewed 500 specific videos."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bennyboy64 writes " NewTeeVee reports on a criminal investigation that has been launched against senior executives of YouTube and parent company Google in Hamburg , Germany over allegations of copyright infringement .
The case started after a complaint was filed by German music rights holders .
Hamburg 's prosecutor has formally requested assistance from US colleagues to compel YouTube to produce log files identifying who uploaded as well as who viewed 500 specific videos .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bennyboy64 writes "NewTeeVee reports on a criminal investigation that has been launched against senior executives of YouTube and parent company Google in Hamburg, Germany over allegations of copyright infringement.
The case started after a complaint was filed by German music rights holders.
Hamburg's prosecutor has formally requested assistance from US colleagues to compel YouTube to produce log files identifying who uploaded as well as who viewed 500 specific videos.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29868437</id>
	<title>simple solution?</title>
	<author>sixsixtysix</author>
	<datestamp>1256482620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simple solution: make mandatory licensing a part of copyright. You want protection for what now seems like an eternity? Well, then you must make it available for licensing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple solution : make mandatory licensing a part of copyright .
You want protection for what now seems like an eternity ?
Well , then you must make it available for licensing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple solution: make mandatory licensing a part of copyright.
You want protection for what now seems like an eternity?
Well, then you must make it available for licensing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075</id>
	<title>Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256394120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can somebody please explain to me why it is apparently illegal to simply receive or observe a performance that violates a copyright? I was of the impression that only the distributing party would be liable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can somebody please explain to me why it is apparently illegal to simply receive or observe a performance that violates a copyright ?
I was of the impression that only the distributing party would be liable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can somebody please explain to me why it is apparently illegal to simply receive or observe a performance that violates a copyright?
I was of the impression that only the distributing party would be liable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856429</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256397420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Copyright is Sacred.</p><p>Copyright now essentially resembles a religious institution. Modern proscriptions on the copying and redistribution of data in the digital age resemble, if anything, proscriptions on the distribution of translations of the Bible in the 1500's at the advent of the printing press. In both cases the technology exists that enables people to transmit information freely and cheaply. In both cases, this new ability threatens the monopoly of an established order. In both cases, that order goes to extreme and unreasonable lengths to defend a status quo that has become farcical.</p><p>So, like the bishops of old, the copyright industry is forced to extreme measures. Attack anyone, at any time, anywhere who seeks to defend or aid or in any way comfort those who break their canon, and do so with the utmost ferocity possible. Our modern legal system enables them to be as vindictive as they like with all the power of the courts behind the. Youtube is and always will be a prime target of their ire, being as it is, the bazaar of modern user content generation and distribution. If they can, they will send the state to smash and tear down the stalls seen here, and send all the meddlers packing. But, they are forgetting the forces that created the bazaar in the first place.</p><p>As the supply becomes infinite, what happens to the price? As people have the ability to copy and now distribute data, text, music and movies at virtually zero cost, why is this data worth anything anymore? Trying to argue about creators rights or fairness or legalities is to sidestep the main issue; the data is fundamentally worth zero. Attempt as you like to construct sophistic or legal or moral arguments around this. But you have sidesteped this main issue, and its fundamental and central issue is aptly demonstrated by the stampede of ordinary people from all walks of life crashing through it and filesharing as they see fit. The public has made its decision.</p><p>You can protest. You can condemn. You can litigate. But ultimately your position is like that of church leaders who protested against the popular printed Bible. People aren't listening. No argument or law or sermon is going to dissuade them from breaking laws they think are silly or unjust. The concept of copyright is too abstract a thing for most people to see breaking it as criminal. The cost of digital distribution too low for most to see its content as being worth anything. The internet has fundamentally changed the nature of content and copyright in a way just as profound as the printing press and the general public has very quickly woken up to this fact. It's time for our legal system to do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Copyright is Sacred.Copyright now essentially resembles a religious institution .
Modern proscriptions on the copying and redistribution of data in the digital age resemble , if anything , proscriptions on the distribution of translations of the Bible in the 1500 's at the advent of the printing press .
In both cases the technology exists that enables people to transmit information freely and cheaply .
In both cases , this new ability threatens the monopoly of an established order .
In both cases , that order goes to extreme and unreasonable lengths to defend a status quo that has become farcical.So , like the bishops of old , the copyright industry is forced to extreme measures .
Attack anyone , at any time , anywhere who seeks to defend or aid or in any way comfort those who break their canon , and do so with the utmost ferocity possible .
Our modern legal system enables them to be as vindictive as they like with all the power of the courts behind the .
Youtube is and always will be a prime target of their ire , being as it is , the bazaar of modern user content generation and distribution .
If they can , they will send the state to smash and tear down the stalls seen here , and send all the meddlers packing .
But , they are forgetting the forces that created the bazaar in the first place.As the supply becomes infinite , what happens to the price ?
As people have the ability to copy and now distribute data , text , music and movies at virtually zero cost , why is this data worth anything anymore ?
Trying to argue about creators rights or fairness or legalities is to sidestep the main issue ; the data is fundamentally worth zero .
Attempt as you like to construct sophistic or legal or moral arguments around this .
But you have sidesteped this main issue , and its fundamental and central issue is aptly demonstrated by the stampede of ordinary people from all walks of life crashing through it and filesharing as they see fit .
The public has made its decision.You can protest .
You can condemn .
You can litigate .
But ultimately your position is like that of church leaders who protested against the popular printed Bible .
People are n't listening .
No argument or law or sermon is going to dissuade them from breaking laws they think are silly or unjust .
The concept of copyright is too abstract a thing for most people to see breaking it as criminal .
The cost of digital distribution too low for most to see its content as being worth anything .
The internet has fundamentally changed the nature of content and copyright in a way just as profound as the printing press and the general public has very quickly woken up to this fact .
It 's time for our legal system to do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Copyright is Sacred.Copyright now essentially resembles a religious institution.
Modern proscriptions on the copying and redistribution of data in the digital age resemble, if anything, proscriptions on the distribution of translations of the Bible in the 1500's at the advent of the printing press.
In both cases the technology exists that enables people to transmit information freely and cheaply.
In both cases, this new ability threatens the monopoly of an established order.
In both cases, that order goes to extreme and unreasonable lengths to defend a status quo that has become farcical.So, like the bishops of old, the copyright industry is forced to extreme measures.
Attack anyone, at any time, anywhere who seeks to defend or aid or in any way comfort those who break their canon, and do so with the utmost ferocity possible.
Our modern legal system enables them to be as vindictive as they like with all the power of the courts behind the.
Youtube is and always will be a prime target of their ire, being as it is, the bazaar of modern user content generation and distribution.
If they can, they will send the state to smash and tear down the stalls seen here, and send all the meddlers packing.
But, they are forgetting the forces that created the bazaar in the first place.As the supply becomes infinite, what happens to the price?
As people have the ability to copy and now distribute data, text, music and movies at virtually zero cost, why is this data worth anything anymore?
Trying to argue about creators rights or fairness or legalities is to sidestep the main issue; the data is fundamentally worth zero.
Attempt as you like to construct sophistic or legal or moral arguments around this.
But you have sidesteped this main issue, and its fundamental and central issue is aptly demonstrated by the stampede of ordinary people from all walks of life crashing through it and filesharing as they see fit.
The public has made its decision.You can protest.
You can condemn.
You can litigate.
But ultimately your position is like that of church leaders who protested against the popular printed Bible.
People aren't listening.
No argument or law or sermon is going to dissuade them from breaking laws they think are silly or unjust.
The concept of copyright is too abstract a thing for most people to see breaking it as criminal.
The cost of digital distribution too low for most to see its content as being worth anything.
The internet has fundamentally changed the nature of content and copyright in a way just as profound as the printing press and the general public has very quickly woken up to this fact.
It's time for our legal system to do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857105</id>
	<title>Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1256403180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have to assume that if I see a video on YouTube, I have the right to do so. If a video happens to be uploaded illegally, that's not my fault as viewer, and I cannot be made responsible for the fact that I was shown that video.</p></div><p>Not that US law is relevant to Germans, but USC 17504(c)(2):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(...) In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.</p></div><p>Or the short version: Yes, you can.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to assume that if I see a video on YouTube , I have the right to do so .
If a video happens to be uploaded illegally , that 's not my fault as viewer , and I can not be made responsible for the fact that I was shown that video.Not that US law is relevant to Germans , but USC 17504 ( c ) ( 2 ) : ( ... ) In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving , and the court finds , that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright , the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $ 200.Or the short version : Yes , you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to assume that if I see a video on YouTube, I have the right to do so.
If a video happens to be uploaded illegally, that's not my fault as viewer, and I cannot be made responsible for the fact that I was shown that video.Not that US law is relevant to Germans, but USC 17504(c)(2):(...) In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.Or the short version: Yes, you can.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857119</id>
	<title>Re:They have no business in knowing who viewed the</title>
	<author>TavisJohn</author>
	<datestamp>1256403360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus, how are you (the viewer) supposed to know if the video infringes anything until you have WATCHED it?  You can not possibly go by the title!  Have you seen how some of the vids are titled?  They often have little or NOTHING to do with the video content.</p><p>And even after you have watched it, how are you really supposed to know the legal status of the video?  It is not like you know if the uploaded has written permission or anything!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , how are you ( the viewer ) supposed to know if the video infringes anything until you have WATCHED it ?
You can not possibly go by the title !
Have you seen how some of the vids are titled ?
They often have little or NOTHING to do with the video content.And even after you have watched it , how are you really supposed to know the legal status of the video ?
It is not like you know if the uploaded has written permission or anything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, how are you (the viewer) supposed to know if the video infringes anything until you have WATCHED it?
You can not possibly go by the title!
Have you seen how some of the vids are titled?
They often have little or NOTHING to do with the video content.And even after you have watched it, how are you really supposed to know the legal status of the video?
It is not like you know if the uploaded has written permission or anything!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856269</id>
	<title>Free advertisment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256395860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously?<br>Youtube is free advertising, not piracy.<br>Many times i've seen a band on youtube and then went and bought music from it. Not just listened to youtube to avoid buying stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ? Youtube is free advertising , not piracy.Many times i 've seen a band on youtube and then went and bought music from it .
Not just listened to youtube to avoid buying stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?Youtube is free advertising, not piracy.Many times i've seen a band on youtube and then went and bought music from it.
Not just listened to youtube to avoid buying stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856305</id>
	<title>They have no business in knowing who viewed them</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1256396160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have no business in knowing who viewed the videos. After all, since YouTube explicitly disables videos which are infringing, I have to assume that if I see a video on YouTube, I have the right to do so. If a video happens to be uploaded illegally, that's not my fault as viewer, and I cannot be made responsible for the fact that I was shown that video.</p><p>Just for the record: I don't have any idea whether I've seen any of those videos. Since those are just 500 videos, and YouTube has so many more, I suspect I haven't. But even if I have, I have done nothing wrong, and therefore they clearly have no moral right (and I really hope also no legal right, although in these times you never can be sure) to demand to find out whether I've seen any of those videos.</p><p>I hope I'll not have to start using anonymous proxies to protect myself when just doing normal, legal activities!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have no business in knowing who viewed the videos .
After all , since YouTube explicitly disables videos which are infringing , I have to assume that if I see a video on YouTube , I have the right to do so .
If a video happens to be uploaded illegally , that 's not my fault as viewer , and I can not be made responsible for the fact that I was shown that video.Just for the record : I do n't have any idea whether I 've seen any of those videos .
Since those are just 500 videos , and YouTube has so many more , I suspect I have n't .
But even if I have , I have done nothing wrong , and therefore they clearly have no moral right ( and I really hope also no legal right , although in these times you never can be sure ) to demand to find out whether I 've seen any of those videos.I hope I 'll not have to start using anonymous proxies to protect myself when just doing normal , legal activities !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have no business in knowing who viewed the videos.
After all, since YouTube explicitly disables videos which are infringing, I have to assume that if I see a video on YouTube, I have the right to do so.
If a video happens to be uploaded illegally, that's not my fault as viewer, and I cannot be made responsible for the fact that I was shown that video.Just for the record: I don't have any idea whether I've seen any of those videos.
Since those are just 500 videos, and YouTube has so many more, I suspect I haven't.
But even if I have, I have done nothing wrong, and therefore they clearly have no moral right (and I really hope also no legal right, although in these times you never can be sure) to demand to find out whether I've seen any of those videos.I hope I'll not have to start using anonymous proxies to protect myself when just doing normal, legal activities!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857361</id>
	<title>What I'd like to see</title>
	<author>mrsam</author>
	<datestamp>1256405520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Of course, the following will never happen, but it's a nice dream to have: Google responding to this kind of nonsense by blocking all German IP address ranges, and returning a static page to all requests to youtube.com (or all Google properties) with a static page carrying a simple message: a criminal investigation was started alleging that we are violating German copyright law, so, regretfully, you can no longer access this site; if you want to have the law changed so that you can access this site again, contact your elected officials.
</p><p>
This of course will never happen. The reason it won't happen is because this makes too much sense to do.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , the following will never happen , but it 's a nice dream to have : Google responding to this kind of nonsense by blocking all German IP address ranges , and returning a static page to all requests to youtube.com ( or all Google properties ) with a static page carrying a simple message : a criminal investigation was started alleging that we are violating German copyright law , so , regretfully , you can no longer access this site ; if you want to have the law changed so that you can access this site again , contact your elected officials .
This of course will never happen .
The reason it wo n't happen is because this makes too much sense to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Of course, the following will never happen, but it's a nice dream to have: Google responding to this kind of nonsense by blocking all German IP address ranges, and returning a static page to all requests to youtube.com (or all Google properties) with a static page carrying a simple message: a criminal investigation was started alleging that we are violating German copyright law, so, regretfully, you can no longer access this site; if you want to have the law changed so that you can access this site again, contact your elected officials.
This of course will never happen.
The reason it won't happen is because this makes too much sense to do.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29866847</id>
	<title>? Does it generate money?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256462220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok I can understand that selling or distributing copyright material is down right wrong. However stick a track on a video, that does not benefit anyone downloading it and keeping for themselves. Infact how many times have you seen some post "Who sung that?" or "wow that track is great who is it?". Generally someone posts who it is! I have actually bought at least two tracks from music I have heard an a youtube video. They need to learn a new business model, advertising your tracks gratis or not helps sell their music. If they are worried people are stealing their music, make sure the technology delivering the video is good enough to stop it. Yes there are ways like re routing sound from the card itself.</p><p>Music industry are killing themselves not us.. They will alienate people ever buying anything and they'll crumble. Well maybe not, but they will lose money on their draconian views of a business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok I can understand that selling or distributing copyright material is down right wrong .
However stick a track on a video , that does not benefit anyone downloading it and keeping for themselves .
Infact how many times have you seen some post " Who sung that ?
" or " wow that track is great who is it ? " .
Generally someone posts who it is !
I have actually bought at least two tracks from music I have heard an a youtube video .
They need to learn a new business model , advertising your tracks gratis or not helps sell their music .
If they are worried people are stealing their music , make sure the technology delivering the video is good enough to stop it .
Yes there are ways like re routing sound from the card itself.Music industry are killing themselves not us.. They will alienate people ever buying anything and they 'll crumble .
Well maybe not , but they will lose money on their draconian views of a business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok I can understand that selling or distributing copyright material is down right wrong.
However stick a track on a video, that does not benefit anyone downloading it and keeping for themselves.
Infact how many times have you seen some post "Who sung that?
" or "wow that track is great who is it?".
Generally someone posts who it is!
I have actually bought at least two tracks from music I have heard an a youtube video.
They need to learn a new business model, advertising your tracks gratis or not helps sell their music.
If they are worried people are stealing their music, make sure the technology delivering the video is good enough to stop it.
Yes there are ways like re routing sound from the card itself.Music industry are killing themselves not us.. They will alienate people ever buying anything and they'll crumble.
Well maybe not, but they will lose money on their draconian views of a business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29859139</id>
	<title>Something they could consider</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256374980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many people under, say, 25 would know who Rick Astley is without YouTube? Sometimes it works out good for the rights holders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people under , say , 25 would know who Rick Astley is without YouTube ?
Sometimes it works out good for the rights holders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people under, say, 25 would know who Rick Astley is without YouTube?
Sometimes it works out good for the rights holders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856617</id>
	<title>Again? But that trick NEVER works!</title>
	<author>Hawthorne01</author>
	<datestamp>1256399160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This time for sure!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This time for sure !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This time for sure!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857021</id>
	<title>Rampant Greed</title>
	<author>kurt555gs</author>
	<datestamp>1256402580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The greed of the music/video industry is only exceeded by those in the oil business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The greed of the music/video industry is only exceeded by those in the oil business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The greed of the music/video industry is only exceeded by those in the oil business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29863523</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>You ain't seen me!</author>
	<datestamp>1256474580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your're right about Sarkozy's insane 3 strikes rule - In the UK the Government have been threatening to do the same.
<p>
However, these same UK politicians also use YouTube pages to spread their propaganda and can often be heard to tell us mere mortals that information can be found on YouTube if we are willing to search.
</p><p>
Now if I follow one of our politicians directions and seek out an item and I hit a page which contains copyright content (even if by mistake whilst searching) does that mean the politician will be liable for incitement to breach copyright law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your 're right about Sarkozy 's insane 3 strikes rule - In the UK the Government have been threatening to do the same .
However , these same UK politicians also use YouTube pages to spread their propaganda and can often be heard to tell us mere mortals that information can be found on YouTube if we are willing to search .
Now if I follow one of our politicians directions and seek out an item and I hit a page which contains copyright content ( even if by mistake whilst searching ) does that mean the politician will be liable for incitement to breach copyright law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your're right about Sarkozy's insane 3 strikes rule - In the UK the Government have been threatening to do the same.
However, these same UK politicians also use YouTube pages to spread their propaganda and can often be heard to tell us mere mortals that information can be found on YouTube if we are willing to search.
Now if I follow one of our politicians directions and seek out an item and I hit a page which contains copyright content (even if by mistake whilst searching) does that mean the politician will be liable for incitement to breach copyright law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856121</id>
	<title>Well, nothing new here...</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1256394540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like business as usual. Guess they will keep trying until (a) they can no longer afford to or (b) they set a precedent by actually having such a case go through the courts and win.

<p>Nothing beats a failure like failing again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like business as usual .
Guess they will keep trying until ( a ) they can no longer afford to or ( b ) they set a precedent by actually having such a case go through the courts and win .
Nothing beats a failure like failing again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like business as usual.
Guess they will keep trying until (a) they can no longer afford to or (b) they set a precedent by actually having such a case go through the courts and win.
Nothing beats a failure like failing again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29858127</id>
	<title>scare tactic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256410980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the music industry knows if will never be able to sue viewers on youtube, they can sue uploaders, it is basically a scare tactic, since they cant legally go after them they will fill news with threats and some people will stop watching them; or at least that is what they think</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the music industry knows if will never be able to sue viewers on youtube , they can sue uploaders , it is basically a scare tactic , since they cant legally go after them they will fill news with threats and some people will stop watching them ; or at least that is what they think</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the music industry knows if will never be able to sue viewers on youtube, they can sue uploaders, it is basically a scare tactic, since they cant legally go after them they will fill news with threats and some people will stop watching them; or at least that is what they think</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29859085</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy</title>
	<author>blindbat</author>
	<datestamp>1256417940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it could be used to determine the extent of the infringement.  I.e.  How *many* people actually benefited from the infringer's distribution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it could be used to determine the extent of the infringement .
I.e. How * many * people actually benefited from the infringer 's distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it could be used to determine the extent of the infringement.
I.e.  How *many* people actually benefited from the infringer's distribution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856177</id>
	<title>Crazy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256395200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Logs to get who viewed the videos. Is that not crazy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Logs to get who viewed the videos .
Is that not crazy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logs to get who viewed the videos.
Is that not crazy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856611</id>
	<title>Re:If we accidentally watched a German video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256399160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets see,<br>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=de&amp;u=http://www.mediabiz.de/musik/news/kreative-legen-im-streit-mit-youtube-nach/281267/seite-2&amp;ei=kQ3jSu7IJdXT8AaTpZTrAQ&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=translate&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=2&amp;ved=0CAsQ7gEwAQ&amp;prev=/search\%3Fq\%3Dhttp://www.mediabiz.de/musik/news/kreative-legen-im-streit-mit-youtube-nach/281267\%26hl\%3Den" title="google.com" rel="nofollow"> In particular, mention can be Sarah Brightman, Frank Peterson, Jon Caffery, Toni Cottura and Wolfsheim-founder Markus Reinhardt, independent record labels such as Gerig, songs, and Bishop, Progressive and labels such as Highball Music or Coconut Music. </a> [google.com]</p> </div><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=Sarah+Brightman&amp;search\_type=&amp;aq=f" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Sarah Brightman</a> [youtube.com] </p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=Frank+Peterson&amp;search\_type=&amp;aq=f" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Frank Peterson</a> [youtube.com] </p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=Jon+Caffery&amp;search\_type=&amp;aq=f" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Jon Caffery</a> [youtube.com] </p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=Toni+Cottura&amp;search\_type=&amp;aq=f" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Toni Cottura</a> [youtube.com] </p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=Markus+Reinhardt&amp;search\_type=&amp;aq=f" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Markus Reinhardt</a> [youtube.com] </p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=Wolfsheim&amp;search\_type=&amp;aq=f" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Wolfsheim</a> [youtube.com] </p><p>however it is odd that they would want to know the users that downloaded it since the last sentence on page two of the mediabiz article it seams to state that they dont care about the end users that viewed (cant quote/link since it just went down and im not on  that page anymore)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see ,   In particular , mention can be Sarah Brightman , Frank Peterson , Jon Caffery , Toni Cottura and Wolfsheim-founder Markus Reinhardt , independent record labels such as Gerig , songs , and Bishop , Progressive and labels such as Highball Music or Coconut Music .
[ google.com ] Sarah Brightman [ youtube.com ] Frank Peterson [ youtube.com ] Jon Caffery [ youtube.com ] Toni Cottura [ youtube.com ] Markus Reinhardt [ youtube.com ] Wolfsheim [ youtube.com ] however it is odd that they would want to know the users that downloaded it since the last sentence on page two of the mediabiz article it seams to state that they dont care about the end users that viewed ( cant quote/link since it just went down and im not on that page anymore )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see,
    In particular, mention can be Sarah Brightman, Frank Peterson, Jon Caffery, Toni Cottura and Wolfsheim-founder Markus Reinhardt, independent record labels such as Gerig, songs, and Bishop, Progressive and labels such as Highball Music or Coconut Music.
[google.com] Sarah Brightman [youtube.com] Frank Peterson [youtube.com] Jon Caffery [youtube.com] Toni Cottura [youtube.com] Markus Reinhardt [youtube.com] Wolfsheim [youtube.com] however it is odd that they would want to know the users that downloaded it since the last sentence on page two of the mediabiz article it seams to state that they dont care about the end users that viewed (cant quote/link since it just went down and im not on  that page anymore)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856903</id>
	<title>You know something is seriously wrong if...</title>
	<author>drej</author>
	<datestamp>1256401860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...you have to explicitly say "Music Rights Holders" instead of "Musicians".</htmltext>
<tokenext>...you have to explicitly say " Music Rights Holders " instead of " Musicians " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you have to explicitly say "Music Rights Holders" instead of "Musicians".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856949</id>
	<title>Put up the take-down order NAMING THE PARTIES</title>
	<author>crovira</author>
	<datestamp>1256402160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>instead of the video so we can all see exactly who is asking for this.</p><p>It would make an acceptable policy for me and let me know that  working for  objected to this.</p><p>It would let us know who's who exactly and would stop the lawyers from scurrying back under their rocks.</p><p>Shine a bright light on these copyright infringements, the infringers and the protectors.</p><p>Something like:</p><p>"This video removed on order on  working for  pursuant to a decision taken on .<br>Click here for a link to a PDF of the court decision.<br>Click here for a list all such requests by <br>Click here for a list all such requests by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>instead of the video so we can all see exactly who is asking for this.It would make an acceptable policy for me and let me know that working for objected to this.It would let us know who 's who exactly and would stop the lawyers from scurrying back under their rocks.Shine a bright light on these copyright infringements , the infringers and the protectors.Something like : " This video removed on order on working for pursuant to a decision taken on .Click here for a link to a PDF of the court decision.Click here for a list all such requests by Click here for a list all such requests by .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>instead of the video so we can all see exactly who is asking for this.It would make an acceptable policy for me and let me know that  working for  objected to this.It would let us know who's who exactly and would stop the lawyers from scurrying back under their rocks.Shine a bright light on these copyright infringements, the infringers and the protectors.Something like:"This video removed on order on  working for  pursuant to a decision taken on .Click here for a link to a PDF of the court decision.Click here for a list all such requests by Click here for a list all such requests by .
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856143</id>
	<title>Excellent news!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256394960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody who wants to watch grainy b&amp;w videos of Germans singing the Horst Wessel Lied should be arrested.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnGAgS8GzYg" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnGAgS8GzYg</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who wants to watch grainy b&amp;w videos of Germans singing the Horst Wessel Lied should be arrested.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = OnGAgS8GzYg [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who wants to watch grainy b&amp;w videos of Germans singing the Horst Wessel Lied should be arrested.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnGAgS8GzYg [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856615</id>
	<title>What? They're f#@$ing with YouTube again?</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1256399160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wait until Hitler finds out. He's going to snap, man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wait until Hitler finds out .
He 's going to snap , man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wait until Hitler finds out.
He's going to snap, man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856265</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>Heppelld0</author>
	<datestamp>1256395860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>the copyright owners are trying to support a failing system. the laws and rights that applied years ago aren't relevant any more but they're still stupidly being enforced.<br>
<br>
i think the world needs to view the internet as a separate country from the rest of the world. there has to be a set of regulations governing the use of the internet. for that to happen, a group has to be set up to agree what is universally and globally seen as criminal behaviour and then apply it to the internet. it can't be "this country allows this, so as long as the person was in this country, its okay", because that country's resources are accessible from everywhere in the physical world. i believe there's such thing as freedom of speech, and everyone should have a say, but there's just some things that the world would be better without.<br>
<br>
its merely a thought exercise, but where better to air a thought than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the copyright owners are trying to support a failing system .
the laws and rights that applied years ago are n't relevant any more but they 're still stupidly being enforced .
i think the world needs to view the internet as a separate country from the rest of the world .
there has to be a set of regulations governing the use of the internet .
for that to happen , a group has to be set up to agree what is universally and globally seen as criminal behaviour and then apply it to the internet .
it ca n't be " this country allows this , so as long as the person was in this country , its okay " , because that country 's resources are accessible from everywhere in the physical world .
i believe there 's such thing as freedom of speech , and everyone should have a say , but there 's just some things that the world would be better without .
its merely a thought exercise , but where better to air a thought than / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the copyright owners are trying to support a failing system.
the laws and rights that applied years ago aren't relevant any more but they're still stupidly being enforced.
i think the world needs to view the internet as a separate country from the rest of the world.
there has to be a set of regulations governing the use of the internet.
for that to happen, a group has to be set up to agree what is universally and globally seen as criminal behaviour and then apply it to the internet.
it can't be "this country allows this, so as long as the person was in this country, its okay", because that country's resources are accessible from everywhere in the physical world.
i believe there's such thing as freedom of speech, and everyone should have a say, but there's just some things that the world would be better without.
its merely a thought exercise, but where better to air a thought than /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29858291</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256411940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.  I've been involved in the Free Software world for more than 10 years.  I've seen it compared to communism.  The case holds a bit of water, but only a bit.  There are fundamental differences.  Everyone gets everything.  100\% distribution.  Communism cannot do this, scarcity of goods prevents it.  In the digital world, storage media is literally pennies per disk at the retail level.  Tenths of a penny per disk at the wholesale level.  I just read yesterday about a fingernail sized chip that can store a terabyte of data.  Solid state storage, that when compared to todays hard disks, can store 10,000 terabytes of data.  The cost may be 100-200 dollars, but thats a lot of data.  A LOT!  The chip is not just a proof of concept, but a working prototype.  Cost of reproduction of data is hundredths of a penny per megabyte.  Costs of distribution (worldwide, instantly) is thousandths of a penny per megabyte (and in my country, internet costs are high).   Design is solely by meritocracy.  Only the best is kept, the rest is left.  Work duties are split among thousands.  Contribution rates may only be 1-2\%, but everyone gets 100\% (even those who have contributed nothing).  Everyone is happy with the arrangement.  This isn't communism.  Not even close.  Its not capitalism either.  Because scarcity is zero, no one keeps score (no charge is made, why bother).  Digital media is becoming a public commons.  People may not like it, but its becoming that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
I 've been involved in the Free Software world for more than 10 years .
I 've seen it compared to communism .
The case holds a bit of water , but only a bit .
There are fundamental differences .
Everyone gets everything .
100 \ % distribution .
Communism can not do this , scarcity of goods prevents it .
In the digital world , storage media is literally pennies per disk at the retail level .
Tenths of a penny per disk at the wholesale level .
I just read yesterday about a fingernail sized chip that can store a terabyte of data .
Solid state storage , that when compared to todays hard disks , can store 10,000 terabytes of data .
The cost may be 100-200 dollars , but thats a lot of data .
A LOT !
The chip is not just a proof of concept , but a working prototype .
Cost of reproduction of data is hundredths of a penny per megabyte .
Costs of distribution ( worldwide , instantly ) is thousandths of a penny per megabyte ( and in my country , internet costs are high ) .
Design is solely by meritocracy .
Only the best is kept , the rest is left .
Work duties are split among thousands .
Contribution rates may only be 1-2 \ % , but everyone gets 100 \ % ( even those who have contributed nothing ) .
Everyone is happy with the arrangement .
This is n't communism .
Not even close .
Its not capitalism either .
Because scarcity is zero , no one keeps score ( no charge is made , why bother ) .
Digital media is becoming a public commons .
People may not like it , but its becoming that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
I've been involved in the Free Software world for more than 10 years.
I've seen it compared to communism.
The case holds a bit of water, but only a bit.
There are fundamental differences.
Everyone gets everything.
100\% distribution.
Communism cannot do this, scarcity of goods prevents it.
In the digital world, storage media is literally pennies per disk at the retail level.
Tenths of a penny per disk at the wholesale level.
I just read yesterday about a fingernail sized chip that can store a terabyte of data.
Solid state storage, that when compared to todays hard disks, can store 10,000 terabytes of data.
The cost may be 100-200 dollars, but thats a lot of data.
A LOT!
The chip is not just a proof of concept, but a working prototype.
Cost of reproduction of data is hundredths of a penny per megabyte.
Costs of distribution (worldwide, instantly) is thousandths of a penny per megabyte (and in my country, internet costs are high).
Design is solely by meritocracy.
Only the best is kept, the rest is left.
Work duties are split among thousands.
Contribution rates may only be 1-2\%, but everyone gets 100\% (even those who have contributed nothing).
Everyone is happy with the arrangement.
This isn't communism.
Not even close.
Its not capitalism either.
Because scarcity is zero, no one keeps score (no charge is made, why bother).
Digital media is becoming a public commons.
People may not like it, but its becoming that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857553</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1256406780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because on computers, everything is a copy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because on computers , everything is a copy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because on computers, everything is a copy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857967</id>
	<title>Re:i suppose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256410020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the artists suing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the artists suing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the artists suing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856889</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256401740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the way the music companies should view this anyway is free advertising for their product. However the industry's knee jerk to this is yet another example of why people should switch to open and indy music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the way the music companies should view this anyway is free advertising for their product .
However the industry 's knee jerk to this is yet another example of why people should switch to open and indy music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the way the music companies should view this anyway is free advertising for their product.
However the industry's knee jerk to this is yet another example of why people should switch to open and indy music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857007</id>
	<title>NAZIS!  National Socialists!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256402460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry.  It was just the first thing that popped into my head when I read this: "Hamburg's prosecutor has formally requested assistance from US colleagues to compel YouTube to produce log files identifying who uploaded as well as who viewed 500 specific videos."</p><p>I better build a secret room above my neighbors' house so I can hide.  Once the Germans get ahold of my name I'll be doomed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry .
It was just the first thing that popped into my head when I read this : " Hamburg 's prosecutor has formally requested assistance from US colleagues to compel YouTube to produce log files identifying who uploaded as well as who viewed 500 specific videos .
" I better build a secret room above my neighbors ' house so I can hide .
Once the Germans get ahold of my name I 'll be doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry.
It was just the first thing that popped into my head when I read this: "Hamburg's prosecutor has formally requested assistance from US colleagues to compel YouTube to produce log files identifying who uploaded as well as who viewed 500 specific videos.
"I better build a secret room above my neighbors' house so I can hide.
Once the Germans get ahold of my name I'll be doomed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29873627</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1256577840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's user-generated content. Go sue the users, not YouTube. Geez, it's like sueing RPG Maker because people make Pok&#233;mon fan games with it.</p><p>Still, I'd rather see Google/YouTube pay for all that copyright infringement rather than the poor users. Or instead, I'd see the music companies wisen up a bit themselves and stop sueing over anything and everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's user-generated content .
Go sue the users , not YouTube .
Geez , it 's like sueing RPG Maker because people make Pok   mon fan games with it.Still , I 'd rather see Google/YouTube pay for all that copyright infringement rather than the poor users .
Or instead , I 'd see the music companies wisen up a bit themselves and stop sueing over anything and everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's user-generated content.
Go sue the users, not YouTube.
Geez, it's like sueing RPG Maker because people make Pokémon fan games with it.Still, I'd rather see Google/YouTube pay for all that copyright infringement rather than the poor users.
Or instead, I'd see the music companies wisen up a bit themselves and stop sueing over anything and everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856189</id>
	<title>i suppose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256395320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>the way i see it is that there's two types of artist. those that produce works for money, and those that don't and get money anyway. the former tend to be the one's doin' the sue-in'. that doesn't mean to say that they don't produce good works of art, it's more the situation "you WILL pay to enjoy my art" as opposed to "if you like it, pay me to produce more". it just doesn't feel right somehow</htmltext>
<tokenext>the way i see it is that there 's two types of artist .
those that produce works for money , and those that do n't and get money anyway .
the former tend to be the one 's doin ' the sue-in' .
that does n't mean to say that they do n't produce good works of art , it 's more the situation " you WILL pay to enjoy my art " as opposed to " if you like it , pay me to produce more " .
it just does n't feel right somehow</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the way i see it is that there's two types of artist.
those that produce works for money, and those that don't and get money anyway.
the former tend to be the one's doin' the sue-in'.
that doesn't mean to say that they don't produce good works of art, it's more the situation "you WILL pay to enjoy my art" as opposed to "if you like it, pay me to produce more".
it just doesn't feel right somehow</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856129</id>
	<title>Take it to the extremes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256394600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either all art will become free or all art will become outlawed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either all art will become free or all art will become outlawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either all art will become free or all art will become outlawed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857123</id>
	<title>Re:Because you copy the work into RAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256403360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The countries that follow the french copyright tradition also recognize the right for personal use. That means that all citizens have the right to access copyrighted works without the copyright owner's authorization, as long as the access is in the form of personal use only and the unauthorized distribution doesn't have a relevant effect on commercial distribution. You know, because we are supposed to be dealing with culture and not a commercial product and the access to culture cannot be affected by how much money someone has.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The countries that follow the french copyright tradition also recognize the right for personal use .
That means that all citizens have the right to access copyrighted works without the copyright owner 's authorization , as long as the access is in the form of personal use only and the unauthorized distribution does n't have a relevant effect on commercial distribution .
You know , because we are supposed to be dealing with culture and not a commercial product and the access to culture can not be affected by how much money someone has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The countries that follow the french copyright tradition also recognize the right for personal use.
That means that all citizens have the right to access copyrighted works without the copyright owner's authorization, as long as the access is in the form of personal use only and the unauthorized distribution doesn't have a relevant effect on commercial distribution.
You know, because we are supposed to be dealing with culture and not a commercial product and the access to culture cannot be affected by how much money someone has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856165</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1256395080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those with money make the rules.</p><p>It's a fucked up state of affairs, and the general public is hopefully hard at work trying to put the MAFIAA out of the rule-making business, but it's going to get worse before it gets better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those with money make the rules.It 's a fucked up state of affairs , and the general public is hopefully hard at work trying to put the MAFIAA out of the rule-making business , but it 's going to get worse before it gets better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those with money make the rules.It's a fucked up state of affairs, and the general public is hopefully hard at work trying to put the MAFIAA out of the rule-making business, but it's going to get worse before it gets better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856287</id>
	<title>What next...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256396040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the next time they find a local radio station transmitting a song, without cpr. permission, what will they do ?<br>Will they sue all county inhabitants ???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the next time they find a local radio station transmitting a song , without cpr .
permission , what will they do ? Will they sue all county inhabitants ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the next time they find a local radio station transmitting a song, without cpr.
permission, what will they do ?Will they sue all county inhabitants ??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29863323</id>
	<title>Re:What I'd like to see</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1256469660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The reason it won't happen is because this makes too much sense to do.</p></div></blockquote><p>

No, the reason it won't happen is that Google is basically an advertising business, and they'd be loosing just too many users.
</p><p>
But I kind of like the idea of Google trying to educate the largest European economy what kind of laws it should adopt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason it wo n't happen is because this makes too much sense to do .
No , the reason it wo n't happen is that Google is basically an advertising business , and they 'd be loosing just too many users .
But I kind of like the idea of Google trying to educate the largest European economy what kind of laws it should adopt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason it won't happen is because this makes too much sense to do.
No, the reason it won't happen is that Google is basically an advertising business, and they'd be loosing just too many users.
But I kind of like the idea of Google trying to educate the largest European economy what kind of laws it should adopt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856481</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1256397840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no law against receiving or observing copyrighted material. In that case, the liable party would indeed be the distributing party. If you seek it out, or copy it yourself, then you may be liable yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no law against receiving or observing copyrighted material .
In that case , the liable party would indeed be the distributing party .
If you seek it out , or copy it yourself , then you may be liable yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no law against receiving or observing copyrighted material.
In that case, the liable party would indeed be the distributing party.
If you seek it out, or copy it yourself, then you may be liable yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29859739</id>
	<title>tor</title>
	<author>luther349</author>
	<datestamp>1256379180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that simple from now on im using that on youtube. pretty hard to tack encrypted proxyed data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that simple from now on im using that on youtube .
pretty hard to tack encrypted proxyed data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that simple from now on im using that on youtube.
pretty hard to tack encrypted proxyed data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29861811</id>
	<title>Re:Because you copy the work into RAM</title>
	<author>lpq</author>
	<datestamp>1256399760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh...</p><p>That doesn't work for me -- I copy a image into my brain cells when I look at it.  The image may be modified or compressed in real time, as my visual subprocessors ignore or tune out parts of the visual stimuli around me, but if I don't make a copy I can't see anything.  The information goes from the external world, through my eyes and is copied into my internal representation of the world.</p><p>Isn't everything we receive as information copied, in some form, into our brain?</p><p>How can one respond to what someone else has said if one doesn't hold it in their own memory long enough to decode and comprehend the meaning?  Copies are the only way we experience the world around us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh...That does n't work for me -- I copy a image into my brain cells when I look at it .
The image may be modified or compressed in real time , as my visual subprocessors ignore or tune out parts of the visual stimuli around me , but if I do n't make a copy I ca n't see anything .
The information goes from the external world , through my eyes and is copied into my internal representation of the world.Is n't everything we receive as information copied , in some form , into our brain ? How can one respond to what someone else has said if one does n't hold it in their own memory long enough to decode and comprehend the meaning ?
Copies are the only way we experience the world around us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh...That doesn't work for me -- I copy a image into my brain cells when I look at it.
The image may be modified or compressed in real time, as my visual subprocessors ignore or tune out parts of the visual stimuli around me, but if I don't make a copy I can't see anything.
The information goes from the external world, through my eyes and is copied into my internal representation of the world.Isn't everything we receive as information copied, in some form, into our brain?How can one respond to what someone else has said if one doesn't hold it in their own memory long enough to decode and comprehend the meaning?
Copies are the only way we experience the world around us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856379</id>
	<title>Re:What next...?</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1256396700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have less experience with Germans than some people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have less experience with Germans than some people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have less experience with Germans than some people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856941</id>
	<title>Price != Value</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1256402040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As the supply becomes infinite, what happens to the price? As people have the ability to copy and now distribute data, text, music and movies at virtually zero cost, why is this data worth anything anymore?</p></div><p>I disagree with your terminology here.  Not your argument or conclusion (I have yet to take a stand on those), but your terminology.</p><p>(maybe that makes me a pedantic, but so be it.  If the mods don't like this, oh well; I have karma to burn and I'm willing to have it be burned to say what I want to say.)</p><p>Value and price are two differen things.  Value is, roughly speaking, how much we like having something and/or how badly we want it.  Price is the amount of resources we trade away to get it.</p><p>I value much of the software I run.  I value listening to JT Bruce's "A skeptic's Hypothesis".  I value watching "Big Buck Bunny".  But I pay aprice of 0 for all of these.  (There's a transaction <em>cost</em> toall of these, sure, but no price).</p><p>What will happen to the value as supply rises?  Pretty much nothing.  The <em>price</em> will likely drop to zero.  Also, people might get a closer approximation of their real preferences if there is more competition.</p><p>But they'll still like listening to $BAND just as much.</p><p>(someone used to call this "value in trade" versus "value in use"; I think it was a greek, but you're armed with the power of Google, so use it if you need.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the supply becomes infinite , what happens to the price ?
As people have the ability to copy and now distribute data , text , music and movies at virtually zero cost , why is this data worth anything anymore ? I disagree with your terminology here .
Not your argument or conclusion ( I have yet to take a stand on those ) , but your terminology .
( maybe that makes me a pedantic , but so be it .
If the mods do n't like this , oh well ; I have karma to burn and I 'm willing to have it be burned to say what I want to say .
) Value and price are two differen things .
Value is , roughly speaking , how much we like having something and/or how badly we want it .
Price is the amount of resources we trade away to get it.I value much of the software I run .
I value listening to JT Bruce 's " A skeptic 's Hypothesis " .
I value watching " Big Buck Bunny " .
But I pay aprice of 0 for all of these .
( There 's a transaction cost toall of these , sure , but no price ) .What will happen to the value as supply rises ?
Pretty much nothing .
The price will likely drop to zero .
Also , people might get a closer approximation of their real preferences if there is more competition.But they 'll still like listening to $ BAND just as much .
( someone used to call this " value in trade " versus " value in use " ; I think it was a greek , but you 're armed with the power of Google , so use it if you need .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the supply becomes infinite, what happens to the price?
As people have the ability to copy and now distribute data, text, music and movies at virtually zero cost, why is this data worth anything anymore?I disagree with your terminology here.
Not your argument or conclusion (I have yet to take a stand on those), but your terminology.
(maybe that makes me a pedantic, but so be it.
If the mods don't like this, oh well; I have karma to burn and I'm willing to have it be burned to say what I want to say.
)Value and price are two differen things.
Value is, roughly speaking, how much we like having something and/or how badly we want it.
Price is the amount of resources we trade away to get it.I value much of the software I run.
I value listening to JT Bruce's "A skeptic's Hypothesis".
I value watching "Big Buck Bunny".
But I pay aprice of 0 for all of these.
(There's a transaction cost toall of these, sure, but no price).What will happen to the value as supply rises?
Pretty much nothing.
The price will likely drop to zero.
Also, people might get a closer approximation of their real preferences if there is more competition.But they'll still like listening to $BAND just as much.
(someone used to call this "value in trade" versus "value in use"; I think it was a greek, but you're armed with the power of Google, so use it if you need.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29867975</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>Meski</author>
	<datestamp>1256476200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turn off youtube and google in Germany for a while.  Until they plead for it to be turned back on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turn off youtube and google in Germany for a while .
Until they plead for it to be turned back on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turn off youtube and google in Germany for a while.
Until they plead for it to be turned back on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856355</id>
	<title>Pretty much makes Europe offlimits, doesn't it?</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1256396520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...as well as who viewed 500 specific videos</p></div><p>The possibility of being dragged into a German court just because you viewed something is a game-changer, I'd say.</p><p>You'd have to weigh the potential time and money lost responding to German legal proceedings against just how bad you want to see any website that is within reach of the German legal system - unless you know the contents of all Flash animations and other media for the entire website <i> <b>in advance</b> </i>.

</p><p>Does Google accept !GermanContent as a query modifier?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...as well as who viewed 500 specific videosThe possibility of being dragged into a German court just because you viewed something is a game-changer , I 'd say.You 'd have to weigh the potential time and money lost responding to German legal proceedings against just how bad you want to see any website that is within reach of the German legal system - unless you know the contents of all Flash animations and other media for the entire website in advance .
Does Google accept ! GermanContent as a query modifier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...as well as who viewed 500 specific videosThe possibility of being dragged into a German court just because you viewed something is a game-changer, I'd say.You'd have to weigh the potential time and money lost responding to German legal proceedings against just how bad you want to see any website that is within reach of the German legal system - unless you know the contents of all Flash animations and other media for the entire website  in advance .
Does Google accept !GermanContent as a query modifier?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29858151</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy</title>
	<author>SpectralDesign</author>
	<datestamp>1256411100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That goes without saying except for one caveat... there is a precedent... when Viacom sued Google (YouTube) for... wait for it... "One B i l l i o n Dollars" they requested the "viewing" logs and Google rolled-over for them (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/07/judge-orders-yo/).  Granted, they were ordered to, but the Judge used their own prior arguments about the meaningfulness of IP addresses to support his argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That goes without saying except for one caveat... there is a precedent... when Viacom sued Google ( YouTube ) for... wait for it... " One B i l l i o n Dollars " they requested the " viewing " logs and Google rolled-over for them ( http : //www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/07/judge-orders-yo/ ) .
Granted , they were ordered to , but the Judge used their own prior arguments about the meaningfulness of IP addresses to support his argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That goes without saying except for one caveat... there is a precedent... when Viacom sued Google (YouTube) for... wait for it... "One B i l l i o n Dollars" they requested the "viewing" logs and Google rolled-over for them (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/07/judge-orders-yo/).
Granted, they were ordered to, but the Judge used their own prior arguments about the meaningfulness of IP addresses to support his argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857847</id>
	<title>You can't reason with bombs and bullets</title>
	<author>Pezbian</author>
	<datestamp>1256409240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Crusaders" are everywhere, even for this kind of trivial shit.</p><p>Much like Godwin's Law and monkeys with typewriters, the more people they piss off, the greater the chance they'll push the buttons of a psycho who has the ability to do some actual damage.</p><p>Give the wrong(right?) person nothing to live for, by wiping them out financially, for example, and you roll the dice on whether they'll take you down with them.</p><p>You can only push a fuse so far beyond rating before it opens.  And only so far beyond that before it explodes famously, often with a domino effect.</p><p>Do people mourn dead lawyers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Crusaders " are everywhere , even for this kind of trivial shit.Much like Godwin 's Law and monkeys with typewriters , the more people they piss off , the greater the chance they 'll push the buttons of a psycho who has the ability to do some actual damage.Give the wrong ( right ?
) person nothing to live for , by wiping them out financially , for example , and you roll the dice on whether they 'll take you down with them.You can only push a fuse so far beyond rating before it opens .
And only so far beyond that before it explodes famously , often with a domino effect.Do people mourn dead lawyers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Crusaders" are everywhere, even for this kind of trivial shit.Much like Godwin's Law and monkeys with typewriters, the more people they piss off, the greater the chance they'll push the buttons of a psycho who has the ability to do some actual damage.Give the wrong(right?
) person nothing to live for, by wiping them out financially, for example, and you roll the dice on whether they'll take you down with them.You can only push a fuse so far beyond rating before it opens.
And only so far beyond that before it explodes famously, often with a domino effect.Do people mourn dead lawyers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857823</id>
	<title>Greedy people still Greedy</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1256409120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News at eleven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News at eleven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News at eleven.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856823</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256401200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The well thought out answer would be that they probably want to find out how many people viewed the videos (as if that's not possible by looking at the numbers on the video page) to find out what amount they're going to sue the uploader and/or youtube for.</p><p>For some reason I don't think it's the real reason. But it's a good way of finding out how far they can go nowadays. Industry has more power than the people they supposedly create goods for but they never stop trying to get even more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The well thought out answer would be that they probably want to find out how many people viewed the videos ( as if that 's not possible by looking at the numbers on the video page ) to find out what amount they 're going to sue the uploader and/or youtube for.For some reason I do n't think it 's the real reason .
But it 's a good way of finding out how far they can go nowadays .
Industry has more power than the people they supposedly create goods for but they never stop trying to get even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The well thought out answer would be that they probably want to find out how many people viewed the videos (as if that's not possible by looking at the numbers on the video page) to find out what amount they're going to sue the uploader and/or youtube for.For some reason I don't think it's the real reason.
But it's a good way of finding out how far they can go nowadays.
Industry has more power than the people they supposedly create goods for but they never stop trying to get even more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856087</id>
	<title>If we accidentally watched a German video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256394300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...can we sue the musician?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...can we sue the musician ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...can we sue the musician?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857963</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>gilgongo</author>
	<datestamp>1256409960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's more likely that copyright will become irrelevant and that contracts (eg Sony BMG have a contract with YouTube that says XYZ) will become the norm. Contract wins over copyright already, and seeing as copyright is plainly stupid in the digital age (it was meant to protect the owners of printing presses for god's sake), it's just going to have to go away.</p><p>That don't mean our lives get any easier though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more likely that copyright will become irrelevant and that contracts ( eg Sony BMG have a contract with YouTube that says XYZ ) will become the norm .
Contract wins over copyright already , and seeing as copyright is plainly stupid in the digital age ( it was meant to protect the owners of printing presses for god 's sake ) , it 's just going to have to go away.That do n't mean our lives get any easier though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more likely that copyright will become irrelevant and that contracts (eg Sony BMG have a contract with YouTube that says XYZ) will become the norm.
Contract wins over copyright already, and seeing as copyright is plainly stupid in the digital age (it was meant to protect the owners of printing presses for god's sake), it's just going to have to go away.That don't mean our lives get any easier though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856987</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>molnarcs</author>
	<datestamp>1256402340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Parent's comment must be one of the most insightful ones I saw regarding copyrights. When we look at the scope and significance of change a particular technology can bring about, the significance of Gutenberg's invention's the only one that matches that of the Internet... I know, I know... the Internet has many "dependencies" (electricity, cables, whatnot), but I'm referring to the impact on culture. <p>
It can be argued that printing made culture possible. Before the invention of printing, the production of cultural artifacts was mostly embedded in rituals: they served 'magical' and religious (sometimes even legal) purposes, and what we now call art or culture were inseparable aspects of other social practices. </p><p>
I believe the Internet has the potential to affect a change similar in scope. However, it is yet to be seen if it can reach its potential. They are key areas that are under constant attack (net neutrality, freedom of speech, etc.) - parent sounds optimistic when assumes that these will be fruitless. I hope he's right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent 's comment must be one of the most insightful ones I saw regarding copyrights .
When we look at the scope and significance of change a particular technology can bring about , the significance of Gutenberg 's invention 's the only one that matches that of the Internet... I know , I know... the Internet has many " dependencies " ( electricity , cables , whatnot ) , but I 'm referring to the impact on culture .
It can be argued that printing made culture possible .
Before the invention of printing , the production of cultural artifacts was mostly embedded in rituals : they served 'magical ' and religious ( sometimes even legal ) purposes , and what we now call art or culture were inseparable aspects of other social practices .
I believe the Internet has the potential to affect a change similar in scope .
However , it is yet to be seen if it can reach its potential .
They are key areas that are under constant attack ( net neutrality , freedom of speech , etc .
) - parent sounds optimistic when assumes that these will be fruitless .
I hope he 's right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent's comment must be one of the most insightful ones I saw regarding copyrights.
When we look at the scope and significance of change a particular technology can bring about, the significance of Gutenberg's invention's the only one that matches that of the Internet... I know, I know... the Internet has many "dependencies" (electricity, cables, whatnot), but I'm referring to the impact on culture.
It can be argued that printing made culture possible.
Before the invention of printing, the production of cultural artifacts was mostly embedded in rituals: they served 'magical' and religious (sometimes even legal) purposes, and what we now call art or culture were inseparable aspects of other social practices.
I believe the Internet has the potential to affect a change similar in scope.
However, it is yet to be seen if it can reach its potential.
They are key areas that are under constant attack (net neutrality, freedom of speech, etc.
) - parent sounds optimistic when assumes that these will be fruitless.
I hope he's right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856135</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256394840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Previously only downloading computer software (including games of course too) was illegal. I think that changed in many EU countries some years ago, and now also downloading music and movies and other copyrighted content is illegal. That would obviously include listening aka downloading from YouTube too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Previously only downloading computer software ( including games of course too ) was illegal .
I think that changed in many EU countries some years ago , and now also downloading music and movies and other copyrighted content is illegal .
That would obviously include listening aka downloading from YouTube too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Previously only downloading computer software (including games of course too) was illegal.
I think that changed in many EU countries some years ago, and now also downloading music and movies and other copyrighted content is illegal.
That would obviously include listening aka downloading from YouTube too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857803</id>
	<title>Re:Hamburg = Texas</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1256408940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not exactly +1, Funny; +1, Informative applies better. The Landgericht Hamburg is known for their peculiar opinions. For example, they maintain that someone running a website involving user content (like a forum or anything with a comment function) is liable for everything anyone writes on that website. And I'm not just talking about thinfs like hate speech, I'm talking about "a company sues the webmaster because a random user falsely said they have been sued in the past".<br>
<br>
Oh, and if you delete the post and sign an agreement stating that you won't say that ever again (even though you never said it in the first place)? The user just needs to come back and repost his allegiation and you're getting a fine (historically in the five digits).<br>
<br>
The real kicker? The law says that you're responsible for user-generated content on your website only if it's technologically feasible and reasonable to monitor the content. However, the LG Hamburg is of the opinion that it's always reasonable to thoroughly monitor all content, even if your forum generates 200.000 posts a month - as in the "Heise verdict", which has luckily been revised in the next instance so that you only need to remove posts you know contain illegal content. Yes, the LG Hamburg maintained that you're supposed to know for every single post made on your site whether its content is legal or not.<br>
<br>
<br>
It's no surprise at all that Hamburg is the venue of choice to sue YouTube and possibly its users over videos infringing on someone's copyrights. I'm positive that the LG Hamburg will come to the conclusion that every user can be expected to be fully aware of the licensing status of all background music in random videos. Before they even watch the video and know which song(s) it contains.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not exactly + 1 , Funny ; + 1 , Informative applies better .
The Landgericht Hamburg is known for their peculiar opinions .
For example , they maintain that someone running a website involving user content ( like a forum or anything with a comment function ) is liable for everything anyone writes on that website .
And I 'm not just talking about thinfs like hate speech , I 'm talking about " a company sues the webmaster because a random user falsely said they have been sued in the past " .
Oh , and if you delete the post and sign an agreement stating that you wo n't say that ever again ( even though you never said it in the first place ) ?
The user just needs to come back and repost his allegiation and you 're getting a fine ( historically in the five digits ) .
The real kicker ?
The law says that you 're responsible for user-generated content on your website only if it 's technologically feasible and reasonable to monitor the content .
However , the LG Hamburg is of the opinion that it 's always reasonable to thoroughly monitor all content , even if your forum generates 200.000 posts a month - as in the " Heise verdict " , which has luckily been revised in the next instance so that you only need to remove posts you know contain illegal content .
Yes , the LG Hamburg maintained that you 're supposed to know for every single post made on your site whether its content is legal or not .
It 's no surprise at all that Hamburg is the venue of choice to sue YouTube and possibly its users over videos infringing on someone 's copyrights .
I 'm positive that the LG Hamburg will come to the conclusion that every user can be expected to be fully aware of the licensing status of all background music in random videos .
Before they even watch the video and know which song ( s ) it contains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not exactly +1, Funny; +1, Informative applies better.
The Landgericht Hamburg is known for their peculiar opinions.
For example, they maintain that someone running a website involving user content (like a forum or anything with a comment function) is liable for everything anyone writes on that website.
And I'm not just talking about thinfs like hate speech, I'm talking about "a company sues the webmaster because a random user falsely said they have been sued in the past".
Oh, and if you delete the post and sign an agreement stating that you won't say that ever again (even though you never said it in the first place)?
The user just needs to come back and repost his allegiation and you're getting a fine (historically in the five digits).
The real kicker?
The law says that you're responsible for user-generated content on your website only if it's technologically feasible and reasonable to monitor the content.
However, the LG Hamburg is of the opinion that it's always reasonable to thoroughly monitor all content, even if your forum generates 200.000 posts a month - as in the "Heise verdict", which has luckily been revised in the next instance so that you only need to remove posts you know contain illegal content.
Yes, the LG Hamburg maintained that you're supposed to know for every single post made on your site whether its content is legal or not.
It's no surprise at all that Hamburg is the venue of choice to sue YouTube and possibly its users over videos infringing on someone's copyrights.
I'm positive that the LG Hamburg will come to the conclusion that every user can be expected to be fully aware of the licensing status of all background music in random videos.
Before they even watch the video and know which song(s) it contains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856171</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256395140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I think this is great. The country I live in (Sweden) has made downloading illegal, as well as uploading. Everyone assumes that copyright infringment is something that only takes place on piratebay. Here is an example that shows how unintelligent it is to criminalize the person downloading something since more or less everyone assumes that if it's on youtube, it must be legal.</p><p>Imagine the law Nicolas Sarkozys is trying to pass in EU (three accusations of copyright infringment and you're banned from the internet) in conjuncture with ordinary peoples use of Youtube.</p><p>But what counts as piracy? If I download the entire Monty Python movie "Life of Brian", I'm definately breaking a law. But what if I want to have a laugh at the Lumberjack song and view it? A copyright holder could definately claim that the uploading of the Lumberjack song is infringement, and thus also the downloading. You can claim it's fair use, but there's no real difference between that and uploading a Britney Spears song to piratebay, right?</p><p>We need examples like this to stop morons like Sarkozy. Or otherwise, we need to start mailing Sarkozy youtube clips until we can prove he too is a "goddamned pirate".</p><p>-- Lars</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think this is great .
The country I live in ( Sweden ) has made downloading illegal , as well as uploading .
Everyone assumes that copyright infringment is something that only takes place on piratebay .
Here is an example that shows how unintelligent it is to criminalize the person downloading something since more or less everyone assumes that if it 's on youtube , it must be legal.Imagine the law Nicolas Sarkozys is trying to pass in EU ( three accusations of copyright infringment and you 're banned from the internet ) in conjuncture with ordinary peoples use of Youtube.But what counts as piracy ?
If I download the entire Monty Python movie " Life of Brian " , I 'm definately breaking a law .
But what if I want to have a laugh at the Lumberjack song and view it ?
A copyright holder could definately claim that the uploading of the Lumberjack song is infringement , and thus also the downloading .
You can claim it 's fair use , but there 's no real difference between that and uploading a Britney Spears song to piratebay , right ? We need examples like this to stop morons like Sarkozy .
Or otherwise , we need to start mailing Sarkozy youtube clips until we can prove he too is a " goddamned pirate " .-- Lars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think this is great.
The country I live in (Sweden) has made downloading illegal, as well as uploading.
Everyone assumes that copyright infringment is something that only takes place on piratebay.
Here is an example that shows how unintelligent it is to criminalize the person downloading something since more or less everyone assumes that if it's on youtube, it must be legal.Imagine the law Nicolas Sarkozys is trying to pass in EU (three accusations of copyright infringment and you're banned from the internet) in conjuncture with ordinary peoples use of Youtube.But what counts as piracy?
If I download the entire Monty Python movie "Life of Brian", I'm definately breaking a law.
But what if I want to have a laugh at the Lumberjack song and view it?
A copyright holder could definately claim that the uploading of the Lumberjack song is infringement, and thus also the downloading.
You can claim it's fair use, but there's no real difference between that and uploading a Britney Spears song to piratebay, right?We need examples like this to stop morons like Sarkozy.
Or otherwise, we need to start mailing Sarkozy youtube clips until we can prove he too is a "goddamned pirate".-- Lars</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29859025</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1256417460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The MAFIAA needs to be boycotted.</p><p>But heaven help us if their litigation machine ever proves profitable even without sales to back them up.  Then there will be no stopping them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The MAFIAA needs to be boycotted.But heaven help us if their litigation machine ever proves profitable even without sales to back them up .
Then there will be no stopping them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MAFIAA needs to be boycotted.But heaven help us if their litigation machine ever proves profitable even without sales to back them up.
Then there will be no stopping them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856125</id>
	<title>Hamburg = Texas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256394600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be noted that the courts in Hamburg are about as moronic concerning IP (Imaginary Property) as the ones in Texas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be noted that the courts in Hamburg are about as moronic concerning IP ( Imaginary Property ) as the ones in Texas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be noted that the courts in Hamburg are about as moronic concerning IP (Imaginary Property) as the ones in Texas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856161</id>
	<title>Because you copy the work into RAM</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1256395020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can somebody please explain to me why it is apparently illegal to simply receive or observe a performance that violates a copyright? I was of the impression that only the distributing party would be liable.</p></div><p>Because you <em>copy</em> the work into your computer's RAM to view it. There is an exception in countries' copyright laws covering necessary short-term copies, such as 17 USC 117 and foreign counterparts, but a lot of these exceptions cover copies only from those copies that are lawfully made.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can somebody please explain to me why it is apparently illegal to simply receive or observe a performance that violates a copyright ?
I was of the impression that only the distributing party would be liable.Because you copy the work into your computer 's RAM to view it .
There is an exception in countries ' copyright laws covering necessary short-term copies , such as 17 USC 117 and foreign counterparts , but a lot of these exceptions cover copies only from those copies that are lawfully made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can somebody please explain to me why it is apparently illegal to simply receive or observe a performance that violates a copyright?
I was of the impression that only the distributing party would be liable.Because you copy the work into your computer's RAM to view it.
There is an exception in countries' copyright laws covering necessary short-term copies, such as 17 USC 117 and foreign counterparts, but a lot of these exceptions cover copies only from those copies that are lawfully made.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29869703</id>
	<title>Re:Performance != Observance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256500740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a hike new tv dinosaur!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a hike new tv dinosaur !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a hike new tv dinosaur!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856245</id>
	<title>specific videos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256395740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>link please</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>link please</tokentext>
<sentencetext>link please</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29859085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29858291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29861811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29863323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29863523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29859025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29858151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29869703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_1153215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29867975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29863523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29858291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29869703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29867975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29861811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856889
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29859025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29863323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29859085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29858151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29857007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_1153215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_1153215.29856269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
