<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_06_1522259</id>
	<title>EMI Sues Beatles Usurper Off the Net</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257522240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>blackest\_k sends along a <em>Wired</em> piece on <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/11/bluebeat-claims-to-own-new-copyrights-to-old-beatles-songs/">EMI's successful suit to get Beatles music off the Net</a>. Here is <a href="http://www.wired.com/images\_blogs/epicenter/2009/11/bluebeatorder2.pdf">the judge's ruling</a> (PDF). <i>"A federal judge on Thursday ordered a Santa Cruz company to immediately quit selling Beatles and other music on its online site, setting aside a preposterous argument that it had copyrights on songs via a process called 'psycho-acoustic simulation.' A Los Angeles federal judge set aside arguments from Hank Risan, owner of BlueBeat and other companies named as defendants in the lawsuit EMI filed on Tuesday. His novel defense to allegations he was unlawfully selling the entire stereo Beatles catalog without permission was that he &mdash; and not EMI or the Beatles' Apple Corp &mdash; owns these sound recordings, because he re-recorded new versions of the songs using what he termed 'psycho-acoustic simulation.' Risan faces perhaps millions of dollars in damages under the Copyright Act. And copyright attorneys said his defense was laughable and carries no weight."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>blackest \ _k sends along a Wired piece on EMI 's successful suit to get Beatles music off the Net .
Here is the judge 's ruling ( PDF ) .
" A federal judge on Thursday ordered a Santa Cruz company to immediately quit selling Beatles and other music on its online site , setting aside a preposterous argument that it had copyrights on songs via a process called 'psycho-acoustic simulation .
' A Los Angeles federal judge set aside arguments from Hank Risan , owner of BlueBeat and other companies named as defendants in the lawsuit EMI filed on Tuesday .
His novel defense to allegations he was unlawfully selling the entire stereo Beatles catalog without permission was that he    and not EMI or the Beatles ' Apple Corp    owns these sound recordings , because he re-recorded new versions of the songs using what he termed 'psycho-acoustic simulation .
' Risan faces perhaps millions of dollars in damages under the Copyright Act .
And copyright attorneys said his defense was laughable and carries no weight .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blackest\_k sends along a Wired piece on EMI's successful suit to get Beatles music off the Net.
Here is the judge's ruling (PDF).
"A federal judge on Thursday ordered a Santa Cruz company to immediately quit selling Beatles and other music on its online site, setting aside a preposterous argument that it had copyrights on songs via a process called 'psycho-acoustic simulation.
' A Los Angeles federal judge set aside arguments from Hank Risan, owner of BlueBeat and other companies named as defendants in the lawsuit EMI filed on Tuesday.
His novel defense to allegations he was unlawfully selling the entire stereo Beatles catalog without permission was that he — and not EMI or the Beatles' Apple Corp — owns these sound recordings, because he re-recorded new versions of the songs using what he termed 'psycho-acoustic simulation.
' Risan faces perhaps millions of dollars in damages under the Copyright Act.
And copyright attorneys said his defense was laughable and carries no weight.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006714</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1257529860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes.</p></div><p>Copying the works of a group nearly half a century after they were first made, of a band whose half of its members are already dead?</p><p>No, this is EXACTLY the sort of copyright that I think any intelligent being ought to oppose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes.Copying the works of a group nearly half a century after they were first made , of a band whose half of its members are already dead ? No , this is EXACTLY the sort of copyright that I think any intelligent being ought to oppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes.Copying the works of a group nearly half a century after they were first made, of a band whose half of its members are already dead?No, this is EXACTLY the sort of copyright that I think any intelligent being ought to oppose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008544</id>
	<title>Re:No, they didn't</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1257540240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently bought "Beatles Rock Band". It's a great game, really well done, with much more enjoyable music than any other karaoke game I've played on any console.</p><p>So I for one am quite happy that some of the proceeds from the game go back to some of the people who created the music in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently bought " Beatles Rock Band " .
It 's a great game , really well done , with much more enjoyable music than any other karaoke game I 've played on any console.So I for one am quite happy that some of the proceeds from the game go back to some of the people who created the music in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently bought "Beatles Rock Band".
It's a great game, really well done, with much more enjoyable music than any other karaoke game I've played on any console.So I for one am quite happy that some of the proceeds from the game go back to some of the people who created the music in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006204</id>
	<title>Perhaps they'll take the long and winding road</title>
	<author>RotateLeftByte</author>
	<datestamp>1257526740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>down to Penny Lane and see Elanor Rigby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>down to Penny Lane and see Elanor Rigby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>down to Penny Lane and see Elanor Rigby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007768</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1257536280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ray Beckerman (/.'s NYCL) is a copyright lawyer, and he doesn't think [deleted] that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads. In fact he fights them tooth and nail.</p></div></blockquote><p>fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ray Beckerman ( / .
's NYCL ) is a copyright lawyer , and he does n't think [ deleted ] that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads .
In fact he fights them tooth and nail.fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ray Beckerman (/.
's NYCL) is a copyright lawyer, and he doesn't think [deleted] that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.
In fact he fights them tooth and nail.fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006270</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1257527160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>THIS is the sort of piracy that the RIAA (and member companies) should fight against. THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes. THIS is the sort of copyright violation that the laws were written to combat.</i> <br> <br>Also the sort of situation where having an ISP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/hosting provider cut off someone's connection probably is appropriate. Assuming that there is a mechanism such as a court injunctiion involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS is the sort of piracy that the RIAA ( and member companies ) should fight against .
THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes .
THIS is the sort of copyright violation that the laws were written to combat .
Also the sort of situation where having an ISP /hosting provider cut off someone 's connection probably is appropriate .
Assuming that there is a mechanism such as a court injunctiion involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THIS is the sort of piracy that the RIAA (and member companies) should fight against.
THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes.
THIS is the sort of copyright violation that the laws were written to combat.
Also the sort of situation where having an ISP /hosting provider cut off someone's connection probably is appropriate.
Assuming that there is a mechanism such as a court injunctiion involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30009888</id>
	<title>Step 3</title>
	<author>Kaenneth</author>
	<datestamp>1257502680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like my idea for a file-copy-that-is-not-a-copy loophole.</p><p>1) read a byte.<br>2) generate a random byte.<br>3) is the random number amazingly identical to the number in the origional file? if so, jump to 5.<br>4) goto 2<br>5) write the new, randomly generated byte into a new file.<br>6) if not at end of input file, goto 1.</p><p>This process may (as there is a chance the program may never generate a particular byte, and loop to the end of the universe) create a file of completely new bits that just happen to match the input file. Such an astonishing co-incidence is truly amazing, and should be shared with the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like my idea for a file-copy-that-is-not-a-copy loophole.1 ) read a byte.2 ) generate a random byte.3 ) is the random number amazingly identical to the number in the origional file ?
if so , jump to 5.4 ) goto 25 ) write the new , randomly generated byte into a new file.6 ) if not at end of input file , goto 1.This process may ( as there is a chance the program may never generate a particular byte , and loop to the end of the universe ) create a file of completely new bits that just happen to match the input file .
Such an astonishing co-incidence is truly amazing , and should be shared with the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like my idea for a file-copy-that-is-not-a-copy loophole.1) read a byte.2) generate a random byte.3) is the random number amazingly identical to the number in the origional file?
if so, jump to 5.4) goto 25) write the new, randomly generated byte into a new file.6) if not at end of input file, goto 1.This process may (as there is a chance the program may never generate a particular byte, and loop to the end of the universe) create a file of completely new bits that just happen to match the input file.
Such an astonishing co-incidence is truly amazing, and should be shared with the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007744</id>
	<title>Good question (diff /xor)</title>
	<author>roguegramma</author>
	<datestamp>1257536220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically the diff you make between your cover song (which you legally produced by paying a little money) could be considered a derivative works of your song and the original song, which would mean you need to acquire licenses to both songs.</p><p>The same might apply to the 'hash', as you call it, but what you really want is an XOR or similar operation applied to your song and the original song. XOR basically mixes your song and the original song such that applying XOR again unmixes the song.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically the diff you make between your cover song ( which you legally produced by paying a little money ) could be considered a derivative works of your song and the original song , which would mean you need to acquire licenses to both songs.The same might apply to the 'hash ' , as you call it , but what you really want is an XOR or similar operation applied to your song and the original song .
XOR basically mixes your song and the original song such that applying XOR again unmixes the song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically the diff you make between your cover song (which you legally produced by paying a little money) could be considered a derivative works of your song and the original song, which would mean you need to acquire licenses to both songs.The same might apply to the 'hash', as you call it, but what you really want is an XOR or similar operation applied to your song and the original song.
XOR basically mixes your song and the original song such that applying XOR again unmixes the song.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008232</id>
	<title>Re:Santa Cruz, California</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1257538740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>also known as the World's Largest Open Air Mental Institution.</p><p>P.S. Sorry, but you'll probably only get this if you've actually visited the place.</p></div><p>Hahahahaha, I grew up there all my life (and I love it!) but you're TOTALLY right! Some people in Santa Cruz are just insanely out of touch hippies that just have no idea whats going on, haha.</p><p>One time a kid told me his brother was working on converting his *Buick* to run on solar power (and would make millions), and another guy kept raving about running your car on water (and how it's "The Man" stopping us from all doing it)...</p><p>When i saw this article i was in no way surprised that that was this guy's defense.</p><p>Santa Cruz is an interesting mix of totally wacked-out hippies and druggies, and then a bunch of normal (but generally liberal) people that like its because its pretty.</p><p>I love it for both the prettiness (it's SUCH a beautiful place if you know where to go), and the amusing wacked-out hippies.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>-Taylor</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>also known as the World 's Largest Open Air Mental Institution.P.S .
Sorry , but you 'll probably only get this if you 've actually visited the place.Hahahahaha , I grew up there all my life ( and I love it !
) but you 're TOTALLY right !
Some people in Santa Cruz are just insanely out of touch hippies that just have no idea whats going on , haha.One time a kid told me his brother was working on converting his * Buick * to run on solar power ( and would make millions ) , and another guy kept raving about running your car on water ( and how it 's " The Man " stopping us from all doing it ) ...When i saw this article i was in no way surprised that that was this guy 's defense.Santa Cruz is an interesting mix of totally wacked-out hippies and druggies , and then a bunch of normal ( but generally liberal ) people that like its because its pretty.I love it for both the prettiness ( it 's SUCH a beautiful place if you know where to go ) , and the amusing wacked-out hippies .
: ) -Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also known as the World's Largest Open Air Mental Institution.P.S.
Sorry, but you'll probably only get this if you've actually visited the place.Hahahahaha, I grew up there all my life (and I love it!
) but you're TOTALLY right!
Some people in Santa Cruz are just insanely out of touch hippies that just have no idea whats going on, haha.One time a kid told me his brother was working on converting his *Buick* to run on solar power (and would make millions), and another guy kept raving about running your car on water (and how it's "The Man" stopping us from all doing it)...When i saw this article i was in no way surprised that that was this guy's defense.Santa Cruz is an interesting mix of totally wacked-out hippies and druggies, and then a bunch of normal (but generally liberal) people that like its because its pretty.I love it for both the prettiness (it's SUCH a beautiful place if you know where to go), and the amusing wacked-out hippies.
:)-Taylor
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008246</id>
	<title>I wouldn't laugh them out of court per se...</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1257538800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The judge PREDICTABLY and logically ruled against him. I'd have laughed him out of court.</p></div><p>I wouldn't.  I'd impose Rule 11 sanctions against their attorneys for making an argument that no one with any knowledge of copyright law could have made in good faith.  There wouldn't be much laughter at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge PREDICTABLY and logically ruled against him .
I 'd have laughed him out of court.I would n't .
I 'd impose Rule 11 sanctions against their attorneys for making an argument that no one with any knowledge of copyright law could have made in good faith .
There would n't be much laughter at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge PREDICTABLY and logically ruled against him.
I'd have laughed him out of court.I wouldn't.
I'd impose Rule 11 sanctions against their attorneys for making an argument that no one with any knowledge of copyright law could have made in good faith.
There wouldn't be much laughter at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006384</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy</title>
	<author>squidfood</author>
	<datestamp>1257527820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes.</p></div><p>Except for those of us who think that songs over 30 years old have already been STOLEN from the public domain.  Or are you talking about the post-'79 Beatles?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes.Except for those of us who think that songs over 30 years old have already been STOLEN from the public domain .
Or are you talking about the post-'79 Beatles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes.Except for those of us who think that songs over 30 years old have already been STOLEN from the public domain.
Or are you talking about the post-'79 Beatles?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006260</id>
	<title>Publicity stunt?</title>
	<author>Tx</author>
	<datestamp>1257527160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it hard to believe that these guys actually thought they would get away with this in the long term. Claiming that their psycho-acoustic simulations are anything other than copies seems incredibly unlikely to fly. They may have thought it was sufficiently legally muddy that they could get away with it for long enough to make a bunch of cash before a judge stomped on them, but I'm thinking the whole thing might have been to generate publicity for the company. If so, they've certainly succeeded, made the national news here in the UK at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it hard to believe that these guys actually thought they would get away with this in the long term .
Claiming that their psycho-acoustic simulations are anything other than copies seems incredibly unlikely to fly .
They may have thought it was sufficiently legally muddy that they could get away with it for long enough to make a bunch of cash before a judge stomped on them , but I 'm thinking the whole thing might have been to generate publicity for the company .
If so , they 've certainly succeeded , made the national news here in the UK at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it hard to believe that these guys actually thought they would get away with this in the long term.
Claiming that their psycho-acoustic simulations are anything other than copies seems incredibly unlikely to fly.
They may have thought it was sufficiently legally muddy that they could get away with it for long enough to make a bunch of cash before a judge stomped on them, but I'm thinking the whole thing might have been to generate publicity for the company.
If so, they've certainly succeeded, made the national news here in the UK at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006174</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1257526560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, you say you wouldn't put too much weight on what they think and then repeat exactly what they think - that the defense is laughable. Uh, ok.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you say you would n't put too much weight on what they think and then repeat exactly what they think - that the defense is laughable .
Uh , ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you say you wouldn't put too much weight on what they think and then repeat exactly what they think - that the defense is laughable.
Uh, ok.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006516</id>
	<title>Re:No, they didn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257528660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>100\% agree - This music was created before I was born and it won't be till after I'm gone that the copyright will expire.</p><p>THIS SERIOUSLY HAMPERS CREATIVITY AND MUSIC IN GENERAL. That's why people disrespect the music industry so much - they are too greedy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100 \ % agree - This music was created before I was born and it wo n't be till after I 'm gone that the copyright will expire.THIS SERIOUSLY HAMPERS CREATIVITY AND MUSIC IN GENERAL .
That 's why people disrespect the music industry so much - they are too greedy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100\% agree - This music was created before I was born and it won't be till after I'm gone that the copyright will expire.THIS SERIOUSLY HAMPERS CREATIVITY AND MUSIC IN GENERAL.
That's why people disrespect the music industry so much - they are too greedy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006352</id>
	<title>Of course...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257527700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And copyright attorneys said his defense was laughable and carries no weight."</p></div>
</blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...music/movie industry copyright lawyers say this about *every* argument that interferes with their clients' business.  Not saying they're wrong in this case, just sayin'...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And copyright attorneys said his defense was laughable and carries no weight .
" ...music/movie industry copyright lawyers say this about * every * argument that interferes with their clients ' business .
Not saying they 're wrong in this case , just sayin'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And copyright attorneys said his defense was laughable and carries no weight.
"
 ...music/movie industry copyright lawyers say this about *every* argument that interferes with their clients' business.
Not saying they're wrong in this case, just sayin'...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007000</id>
	<title>Clearly nobody read the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257531660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't lose because their theory was preposterous, they lost because they couldn't back up their defensive claims.  basically they made sound-a-like recordings.  They modeled them with regard to psycho-acoustics (a very real discipline which studies how acoustical phenomena are interpreted by the brain) thereby they might make one noise at the same time as another to actually get it to sound like a noise on the original album (think of optical illusions but for the ear, aural illusions).  They lost because they could offer no evidence (ie. no recordings, instruments they used, tracks they had assembled, etc.) to back their having re-recorded any of the works they were selling, and because the tracks being sold sounded identical it was assumed they were.  But theoretically you could re-record an album and then craft it with regard to psycho acoustics (changing reverb tails, adding and subtracting frequencies, etc.) model it in such away that two recordings sounded identical, and then you'd be in the clear.  Cause the courts didn't decide the defense was invalid, they decided that the defendant's making that case while offering no evidence was ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't lose because their theory was preposterous , they lost because they could n't back up their defensive claims .
basically they made sound-a-like recordings .
They modeled them with regard to psycho-acoustics ( a very real discipline which studies how acoustical phenomena are interpreted by the brain ) thereby they might make one noise at the same time as another to actually get it to sound like a noise on the original album ( think of optical illusions but for the ear , aural illusions ) .
They lost because they could offer no evidence ( ie .
no recordings , instruments they used , tracks they had assembled , etc .
) to back their having re-recorded any of the works they were selling , and because the tracks being sold sounded identical it was assumed they were .
But theoretically you could re-record an album and then craft it with regard to psycho acoustics ( changing reverb tails , adding and subtracting frequencies , etc .
) model it in such away that two recordings sounded identical , and then you 'd be in the clear .
Cause the courts did n't decide the defense was invalid , they decided that the defendant 's making that case while offering no evidence was ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't lose because their theory was preposterous, they lost because they couldn't back up their defensive claims.
basically they made sound-a-like recordings.
They modeled them with regard to psycho-acoustics (a very real discipline which studies how acoustical phenomena are interpreted by the brain) thereby they might make one noise at the same time as another to actually get it to sound like a noise on the original album (think of optical illusions but for the ear, aural illusions).
They lost because they could offer no evidence (ie.
no recordings, instruments they used, tracks they had assembled, etc.
) to back their having re-recorded any of the works they were selling, and because the tracks being sold sounded identical it was assumed they were.
But theoretically you could re-record an album and then craft it with regard to psycho acoustics (changing reverb tails, adding and subtracting frequencies, etc.
) model it in such away that two recordings sounded identical, and then you'd be in the clear.
Cause the courts didn't decide the defense was invalid, they decided that the defendant's making that case while offering no evidence was ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006360</id>
	<title>Giving Us a Bad Name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257527700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>These guys are giving those of us trying to sell legitimate copies of stolen music a real bad name.  Shame on you BlueBeat!</htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys are giving those of us trying to sell legitimate copies of stolen music a real bad name .
Shame on you BlueBeat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These guys are giving those of us trying to sell legitimate copies of stolen music a real bad name.
Shame on you BlueBeat!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006096</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257526020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006768</id>
	<title>Re:What kind of idiotic title is that anyway?</title>
	<author>Etrias</author>
	<datestamp>1257530220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hear hear.  I've been reading this story over on Ars the last couple of days (<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/judge-hits-beatles-mp3-seller-with-restraining-order.ars?utm\_source=rss&amp;utm\_medium=rss&amp;utm\_campaign=rss" title="arstechnica.com">here</a> [arstechnica.com]) and the title of the article on Ars is very appropriate.<br> <br>

I've cut kdawson a lot of slack in the past, sometimes just shaking my head and just letting the detractors do what they do, but this title is just fucking wrong.  Have you seen what BlueBeat is trying to pull off legally here?  Another <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/about-those-beatles-songs-its-weirder-than-you-thought.ars" title="arstechnica.com">Ars link</a> [arstechnica.com] to explain their confusing legal defense.  This is under the same parent company who threatened to sue a bunch of multinationals because supposedly their DRM schemes weren't compliant with the DMCA and tried to get them all to license MRT's product.<br> <br>

kdawson...what the hell?  The title is wrong at best, you cherry-picked the article to frame this so that there is some ambiguity here and make it seem like EMI is the big bad picking on the little company.  Seriously, this whole article is trying to stir shit up.  BlueBeat is not the good guy here.  Let me be clear that I'm no supporter of what the RIAA does or generally the music companies behind it.  This time though, EMI is not in the wrong here.  Whoever is running BlueBeat seems to be fucking insane and that's how the story should be framed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear hear .
I 've been reading this story over on Ars the last couple of days ( here [ arstechnica.com ] ) and the title of the article on Ars is very appropriate .
I 've cut kdawson a lot of slack in the past , sometimes just shaking my head and just letting the detractors do what they do , but this title is just fucking wrong .
Have you seen what BlueBeat is trying to pull off legally here ?
Another Ars link [ arstechnica.com ] to explain their confusing legal defense .
This is under the same parent company who threatened to sue a bunch of multinationals because supposedly their DRM schemes were n't compliant with the DMCA and tried to get them all to license MRT 's product .
kdawson...what the hell ?
The title is wrong at best , you cherry-picked the article to frame this so that there is some ambiguity here and make it seem like EMI is the big bad picking on the little company .
Seriously , this whole article is trying to stir shit up .
BlueBeat is not the good guy here .
Let me be clear that I 'm no supporter of what the RIAA does or generally the music companies behind it .
This time though , EMI is not in the wrong here .
Whoever is running BlueBeat seems to be fucking insane and that 's how the story should be framed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear hear.
I've been reading this story over on Ars the last couple of days (here [arstechnica.com]) and the title of the article on Ars is very appropriate.
I've cut kdawson a lot of slack in the past, sometimes just shaking my head and just letting the detractors do what they do, but this title is just fucking wrong.
Have you seen what BlueBeat is trying to pull off legally here?
Another Ars link [arstechnica.com] to explain their confusing legal defense.
This is under the same parent company who threatened to sue a bunch of multinationals because supposedly their DRM schemes weren't compliant with the DMCA and tried to get them all to license MRT's product.
kdawson...what the hell?
The title is wrong at best, you cherry-picked the article to frame this so that there is some ambiguity here and make it seem like EMI is the big bad picking on the little company.
Seriously, this whole article is trying to stir shit up.
BlueBeat is not the good guy here.
Let me be clear that I'm no supporter of what the RIAA does or generally the music companies behind it.
This time though, EMI is not in the wrong here.
Whoever is running BlueBeat seems to be fucking insane and that's how the story should be framed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006086</id>
	<title>Heh Heh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257526020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe now they'll 'beat it'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe now they 'll 'beat it'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe now they'll 'beat it'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006258</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1257527160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't he have to face the same insane damages that file sharers face? Only a million in fines? If I shared Sgt. Pepper, I'd be looking at several times that and this guy was selling the whole catalog.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't he have to face the same insane damages that file sharers face ?
Only a million in fines ?
If I shared Sgt .
Pepper , I 'd be looking at several times that and this guy was selling the whole catalog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't he have to face the same insane damages that file sharers face?
Only a million in fines?
If I shared Sgt.
Pepper, I'd be looking at several times that and this guy was selling the whole catalog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007976</id>
	<title>Re:No, they didn't</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257537600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Except that fuckwads like this guy would try to sell it online, I don't think should be allowed. If falls in the PD, then no one should be allowed to profit unless its for REASONABLE distribution costs -- copieng burning etc..)</i></p><p>No, it should be like Mark Twain's and Shakespeare's works: anybody can publish and distribute for free, or for profit. When copyright expires the work is supposed to beliong to humanity. Actually, under the US Constitution, it belongs to humanity as soon as it is created. The author doesn't own the content, he owns a limited time monopoly on its distribution. <b>Intellectual property is unconstitutional and unAmerican</b>.</p><p>This guy should be able to "sell" it online -- but good luck with that when you should be able to get it free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that fuckwads like this guy would try to sell it online , I do n't think should be allowed .
If falls in the PD , then no one should be allowed to profit unless its for REASONABLE distribution costs -- copieng burning etc.. ) No , it should be like Mark Twain 's and Shakespeare 's works : anybody can publish and distribute for free , or for profit .
When copyright expires the work is supposed to beliong to humanity .
Actually , under the US Constitution , it belongs to humanity as soon as it is created .
The author does n't own the content , he owns a limited time monopoly on its distribution .
Intellectual property is unconstitutional and unAmerican.This guy should be able to " sell " it online -- but good luck with that when you should be able to get it free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that fuckwads like this guy would try to sell it online, I don't think should be allowed.
If falls in the PD, then no one should be allowed to profit unless its for REASONABLE distribution costs -- copieng burning etc..)No, it should be like Mark Twain's and Shakespeare's works: anybody can publish and distribute for free, or for profit.
When copyright expires the work is supposed to beliong to humanity.
Actually, under the US Constitution, it belongs to humanity as soon as it is created.
The author doesn't own the content, he owns a limited time monopoly on its distribution.
Intellectual property is unconstitutional and unAmerican.This guy should be able to "sell" it online -- but good luck with that when you should be able to get it free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006130</id>
	<title>What kind of idiotic title is that anyway?</title>
	<author>Briareos</author>
	<datestamp>1257526260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me, or is EMI not suing the Beatles (half of which aren't even going to show up in court), but really some fuckwad that sold illegal copies of their songs?</p><p><i>np: Burial - Distant Lights (Various - 5 Years Of Hyperdub (Disc 2))</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me , or is EMI not suing the Beatles ( half of which are n't even going to show up in court ) , but really some fuckwad that sold illegal copies of their songs ? np : Burial - Distant Lights ( Various - 5 Years Of Hyperdub ( Disc 2 ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me, or is EMI not suing the Beatles (half of which aren't even going to show up in court), but really some fuckwad that sold illegal copies of their songs?np: Burial - Distant Lights (Various - 5 Years Of Hyperdub (Disc 2))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006422</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257527940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.</i></p><p>Ray Beckerman (/.'s NYCL) is a copyright lawyer, and he doesn't think file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads. In fact he fights them tooth and nail.</p><p>But I would bet he would agree that this guy's defense is laughable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy 's defense , but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.Ray Beckerman ( / .
's NYCL ) is a copyright lawyer , and he does n't think file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads .
In fact he fights them tooth and nail.But I would bet he would agree that this guy 's defense is laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.Ray Beckerman (/.
's NYCL) is a copyright lawyer, and he doesn't think file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.
In fact he fights them tooth and nail.But I would bet he would agree that this guy's defense is laughable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007192</id>
	<title>Re:For Profit?</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1257532740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your currently claimed difference implies the moral line resides with the person committing the action, and that for something to be wrong the person committing the action has to obviously know that it is wrong for it to be not OK.</p><p>By that logic as long as I obviously didn't think it was wrong I could walk into your garage and use your car, as long as i didn't try to run or hide behind some law ans was just like, "oh, what's wrong with that?"  Note I'm not saying that's a direct parallel to downloading copyrighted material, I'm just saying that's a direct parallel to what you claim the difference to be between allowing people to download music you don't own and making a profit and letting people download music you don't own for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your currently claimed difference implies the moral line resides with the person committing the action , and that for something to be wrong the person committing the action has to obviously know that it is wrong for it to be not OK.By that logic as long as I obviously did n't think it was wrong I could walk into your garage and use your car , as long as i did n't try to run or hide behind some law ans was just like , " oh , what 's wrong with that ?
" Note I 'm not saying that 's a direct parallel to downloading copyrighted material , I 'm just saying that 's a direct parallel to what you claim the difference to be between allowing people to download music you do n't own and making a profit and letting people download music you do n't own for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your currently claimed difference implies the moral line resides with the person committing the action, and that for something to be wrong the person committing the action has to obviously know that it is wrong for it to be not OK.By that logic as long as I obviously didn't think it was wrong I could walk into your garage and use your car, as long as i didn't try to run or hide behind some law ans was just like, "oh, what's wrong with that?
"  Note I'm not saying that's a direct parallel to downloading copyrighted material, I'm just saying that's a direct parallel to what you claim the difference to be between allowing people to download music you don't own and making a profit and letting people download music you don't own for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007942</id>
	<title>Re:Psycho-acoustics</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1257537360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It is a methodology of making something sound like it's coming from somewhere other than where its really coming from</i></p><p>So when my wife gives me a rude stare for passing wind and I blame the dog, using this methodology she will believe me? Cool, tell me more!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a methodology of making something sound like it 's coming from somewhere other than where its really coming fromSo when my wife gives me a rude stare for passing wind and I blame the dog , using this methodology she will believe me ?
Cool , tell me more !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a methodology of making something sound like it's coming from somewhere other than where its really coming fromSo when my wife gives me a rude stare for passing wind and I blame the dog, using this methodology she will believe me?
Cool, tell me more!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007114</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1257532200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is no fine because there hasn't been a trial yet. the judge issued the injunction because based on preliminary evidence it seems the guy will lose at trial. but the wacko still has time to come up with something new as to why he should be win</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is no fine because there has n't been a trial yet .
the judge issued the injunction because based on preliminary evidence it seems the guy will lose at trial .
but the wacko still has time to come up with something new as to why he should be win</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is no fine because there hasn't been a trial yet.
the judge issued the injunction because based on preliminary evidence it seems the guy will lose at trial.
but the wacko still has time to come up with something new as to why he should be win</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006418</id>
	<title>Re:What is PAS?</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1257527940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would guess that what was done was one of two things:</p><p>Mechanical production of a cover through some device that, on "hearing" a tune, would attempt to duplicate it in some analogue way, thus producing what would be, under some definitional frameworks, a cover rather than a reproduction.</p><p>Computer-driven replication of a file through means that are not exactly copying, e.g. churning over random generation of bits of data and comparison with the original (either direct or medium-specific, e.g. audio). Done with high enough granularity a file that's either identical or acoustically practically identical to the original is produced (akin to how re-encoding a song in a different format can leave it essentially sounding the same).</p><p>With either of these, one might claim that no true procedural copying took place, just something that is functionally copying.</p><p>I would guess this because I occasionally thought about such things myself when I was much younger (and of the over-logicy libertarian mental flavour).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would guess that what was done was one of two things : Mechanical production of a cover through some device that , on " hearing " a tune , would attempt to duplicate it in some analogue way , thus producing what would be , under some definitional frameworks , a cover rather than a reproduction.Computer-driven replication of a file through means that are not exactly copying , e.g .
churning over random generation of bits of data and comparison with the original ( either direct or medium-specific , e.g .
audio ) . Done with high enough granularity a file that 's either identical or acoustically practically identical to the original is produced ( akin to how re-encoding a song in a different format can leave it essentially sounding the same ) .With either of these , one might claim that no true procedural copying took place , just something that is functionally copying.I would guess this because I occasionally thought about such things myself when I was much younger ( and of the over-logicy libertarian mental flavour ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would guess that what was done was one of two things:Mechanical production of a cover through some device that, on "hearing" a tune, would attempt to duplicate it in some analogue way, thus producing what would be, under some definitional frameworks, a cover rather than a reproduction.Computer-driven replication of a file through means that are not exactly copying, e.g.
churning over random generation of bits of data and comparison with the original (either direct or medium-specific, e.g.
audio). Done with high enough granularity a file that's either identical or acoustically practically identical to the original is produced (akin to how re-encoding a song in a different format can leave it essentially sounding the same).With either of these, one might claim that no true procedural copying took place, just something that is functionally copying.I would guess this because I occasionally thought about such things myself when I was much younger (and of the over-logicy libertarian mental flavour).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102</id>
	<title>I wouldn't listen to the naysayers</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1257526080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.</p><p>I wouldn't put too much weight on what they think.</p><p>As for this guy in the article, it's pretty clear he was just trying to make a buck by ripping off the Beatles' music. I'm surprised that the judge didn't hand down a larger fine, actually. His "psycho-acoustic simulation" argument was laughable at best. Facepalm worthy, at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy 's defense , but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.I would n't put too much weight on what they think.As for this guy in the article , it 's pretty clear he was just trying to make a buck by ripping off the Beatles ' music .
I 'm surprised that the judge did n't hand down a larger fine , actually .
His " psycho-acoustic simulation " argument was laughable at best .
Facepalm worthy , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.I wouldn't put too much weight on what they think.As for this guy in the article, it's pretty clear he was just trying to make a buck by ripping off the Beatles' music.
I'm surprised that the judge didn't hand down a larger fine, actually.
His "psycho-acoustic simulation" argument was laughable at best.
Facepalm worthy, at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006372</id>
	<title>Lucy in the Sky with Patents</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257527760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Timothy Leary was born a few decades later, he'd <b>patent psychedelic trips</b>. Then we'd be stuck in the bland 50's forever singing doo-wap tunes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Timothy Leary was born a few decades later , he 'd patent psychedelic trips .
Then we 'd be stuck in the bland 50 's forever singing doo-wap tunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Timothy Leary was born a few decades later, he'd patent psychedelic trips.
Then we'd be stuck in the bland 50's forever singing doo-wap tunes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006468</id>
	<title>Crackpots (Re:Santa Cruz, California)</title>
	<author>s-whs</author>
	<datestamp>1257528360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Santa Cruz, California<br>&gt;<br>&gt; also known as the World's Largest Open Air Mental Institution.<br>&gt; P.S. Sorry, but you'll probably only get this if you've actually visited the place.</p><p>Except that Santa Cruz is synonymous with crackpot on slashdot due to people with silly names working for SCO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Santa Cruz , California &gt; &gt; also known as the World 's Largest Open Air Mental Institution. &gt; P.S .
Sorry , but you 'll probably only get this if you 've actually visited the place.Except that Santa Cruz is synonymous with crackpot on slashdot due to people with silly names working for SCO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Santa Cruz, California&gt;&gt; also known as the World's Largest Open Air Mental Institution.&gt; P.S.
Sorry, but you'll probably only get this if you've actually visited the place.Except that Santa Cruz is synonymous with crackpot on slashdot due to people with silly names working for SCO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006566</id>
	<title>How about this concept...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257528960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The strange twists of what is and is not an original.</p><p>I don't know if this concept is technically possible but interesting either way.</p><p>Your band makes a cover of "Hard Day's Night".  You have some software that compares your cover song to the original and creates a diff based on pitch changes, speed, attack, decay of the notes etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..  Once completed, this sound "diff" applied to your cover song generates an ouput that is something very close in sound to the original copy from the Beatles.  What part of this process would the current laws for copyright enfringment apply to?  The diff, the cover song (assume it was made legally), the software used to make the diff or the software used to apply the diff?  How far away from the original recording is considered legally to close that it is no longer considered a cover but a copy of the original?  What if you distribute a diff that makes it closer to the original but some completely unrelated third party provides yet another diff that makes it even closer if both are applied?  Most importantly for the RIAA, who is in the wrong and who can be sued for the copyright infringement?</p><p>Another situation taking it a step further..<br>Someone uses the mp3 in binary form of the Metallica song "Master of Puppets" to hash other Metallica songs they own to generate a unique output and distributes those diffs.  All you would need to generate your own Metallica collection of songs would be to buy the original "Master of Puppets" mp3 and download those hashes.  The hashes distributed are not copyrighted and you are not distributing the songs, how would the RIAA handle this and what would be the illegal file?  What instead of using "Master of Puppets" for the source, you used  notepad.exe as the source?  What if your hashes contained a disclaimer that those files were encrypted and any attempt to defeat any encryption would violate the DMCA?</p><p>The world of copyright is riddled with potholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The strange twists of what is and is not an original.I do n't know if this concept is technically possible but interesting either way.Your band makes a cover of " Hard Day 's Night " .
You have some software that compares your cover song to the original and creates a diff based on pitch changes , speed , attack , decay of the notes etc .. Once completed , this sound " diff " applied to your cover song generates an ouput that is something very close in sound to the original copy from the Beatles .
What part of this process would the current laws for copyright enfringment apply to ?
The diff , the cover song ( assume it was made legally ) , the software used to make the diff or the software used to apply the diff ?
How far away from the original recording is considered legally to close that it is no longer considered a cover but a copy of the original ?
What if you distribute a diff that makes it closer to the original but some completely unrelated third party provides yet another diff that makes it even closer if both are applied ?
Most importantly for the RIAA , who is in the wrong and who can be sued for the copyright infringement ? Another situation taking it a step further..Someone uses the mp3 in binary form of the Metallica song " Master of Puppets " to hash other Metallica songs they own to generate a unique output and distributes those diffs .
All you would need to generate your own Metallica collection of songs would be to buy the original " Master of Puppets " mp3 and download those hashes .
The hashes distributed are not copyrighted and you are not distributing the songs , how would the RIAA handle this and what would be the illegal file ?
What instead of using " Master of Puppets " for the source , you used notepad.exe as the source ?
What if your hashes contained a disclaimer that those files were encrypted and any attempt to defeat any encryption would violate the DMCA ? The world of copyright is riddled with potholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The strange twists of what is and is not an original.I don't know if this concept is technically possible but interesting either way.Your band makes a cover of "Hard Day's Night".
You have some software that compares your cover song to the original and creates a diff based on pitch changes, speed, attack, decay of the notes etc ..  Once completed, this sound "diff" applied to your cover song generates an ouput that is something very close in sound to the original copy from the Beatles.
What part of this process would the current laws for copyright enfringment apply to?
The diff, the cover song (assume it was made legally), the software used to make the diff or the software used to apply the diff?
How far away from the original recording is considered legally to close that it is no longer considered a cover but a copy of the original?
What if you distribute a diff that makes it closer to the original but some completely unrelated third party provides yet another diff that makes it even closer if both are applied?
Most importantly for the RIAA, who is in the wrong and who can be sued for the copyright infringement?Another situation taking it a step further..Someone uses the mp3 in binary form of the Metallica song "Master of Puppets" to hash other Metallica songs they own to generate a unique output and distributes those diffs.
All you would need to generate your own Metallica collection of songs would be to buy the original "Master of Puppets" mp3 and download those hashes.
The hashes distributed are not copyrighted and you are not distributing the songs, how would the RIAA handle this and what would be the illegal file?
What instead of using "Master of Puppets" for the source, you used  notepad.exe as the source?
What if your hashes contained a disclaimer that those files were encrypted and any attempt to defeat any encryption would violate the DMCA?The world of copyright is riddled with potholes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008046</id>
	<title>In other news, Simon Cowell breaths sigh of relief</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1257537960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...as this methodology finally proves that nothing on the X-Factor sounds anything like music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...as this methodology finally proves that nothing on the X-Factor sounds anything like music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...as this methodology finally proves that nothing on the X-Factor sounds anything like music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006542</id>
	<title>Re:No, they didn't</title>
	<author>cb95amc</author>
	<datestamp>1257528900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely Paul McCartney needs the continued royalties from the Beatles music so he can continue to finance large divorce settlements!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely Paul McCartney needs the continued royalties from the Beatles music so he can continue to finance large divorce settlements !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely Paul McCartney needs the continued royalties from the Beatles music so he can continue to finance large divorce settlements!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006196</id>
	<title>What is PAS?</title>
	<author>Ambiguous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1257526680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, the article uses the term several times, the summary uses the term...googling "psycho acoustic simulation" just brings up various regurgitations of the same article.</p><p>I realize that it's just some term the guy made up. But if he's going to use it as a defense, and people are going to talk about it, it seems *someone* should define it. Neither of the documents in the linked article have the text "psycho" in them, either, so that's a no go.</p><p>I just wanted to find out exactly how crazy the guy is, that's all.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , the article uses the term several times , the summary uses the term...googling " psycho acoustic simulation " just brings up various regurgitations of the same article.I realize that it 's just some term the guy made up .
But if he 's going to use it as a defense , and people are going to talk about it , it seems * someone * should define it .
Neither of the documents in the linked article have the text " psycho " in them , either , so that 's a no go.I just wanted to find out exactly how crazy the guy is , that 's all .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, the article uses the term several times, the summary uses the term...googling "psycho acoustic simulation" just brings up various regurgitations of the same article.I realize that it's just some term the guy made up.
But if he's going to use it as a defense, and people are going to talk about it, it seems *someone* should define it.
Neither of the documents in the linked article have the text "psycho" in them, either, so that's a no go.I just wanted to find out exactly how crazy the guy is, that's all.
:/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006556</id>
	<title>Re:What is PAS?</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1257528900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, the article uses the term several times, the summary uses the term...googling "psycho acoustic simulation" just brings up various regurgitations of the same article.</p><p>I realize that it's just some term the guy made up.</p></div><p>Why do you think he was laughed out of court?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , the article uses the term several times , the summary uses the term...googling " psycho acoustic simulation " just brings up various regurgitations of the same article.I realize that it 's just some term the guy made up.Why do you think he was laughed out of court ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, the article uses the term several times, the summary uses the term...googling "psycho acoustic simulation" just brings up various regurgitations of the same article.I realize that it's just some term the guy made up.Why do you think he was laughed out of court?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008336</id>
	<title>Why not ??</title>
	<author>Archfeld</author>
	<datestamp>1257539280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A laughable defense that carries no weight has been working for the record industry for decades...</p><p>SLashdot, slower and more bloated by release...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A laughable defense that carries no weight has been working for the record industry for decades...SLashdot , slower and more bloated by release.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A laughable defense that carries no weight has been working for the record industry for decades...SLashdot, slower and more bloated by release...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007268</id>
	<title>Sounds familiar</title>
	<author>johnw</author>
	<datestamp>1257533160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A federal judge on Thursday ordered a Santa Cruz company to immediately quit selling Beatles and other music on its online site, setting aside a preposterous argument that it had copyrights on songs via a process called 'psycho-acoustic simulation.'</p> </div><p>Who'd have thought it?  Preposterous arguments from a Santa Cruz Organisation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A federal judge on Thursday ordered a Santa Cruz company to immediately quit selling Beatles and other music on its online site , setting aside a preposterous argument that it had copyrights on songs via a process called 'psycho-acoustic simulation .
' Who 'd have thought it ?
Preposterous arguments from a Santa Cruz Organisation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A federal judge on Thursday ordered a Santa Cruz company to immediately quit selling Beatles and other music on its online site, setting aside a preposterous argument that it had copyrights on songs via a process called 'psycho-acoustic simulation.
' Who'd have thought it?
Preposterous arguments from a Santa Cruz Organisation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006280</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257527220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they really weren't.</p><p>The sort of piracy that the laws were written to combat is the file sharing noobs who don't think they'r doing anything wrong.</p><p>This guy you could deal with in other ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they really were n't.The sort of piracy that the laws were written to combat is the file sharing noobs who do n't think they'r doing anything wrong.This guy you could deal with in other ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they really weren't.The sort of piracy that the laws were written to combat is the file sharing noobs who don't think they'r doing anything wrong.This guy you could deal with in other ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006312</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1257527400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>THIS is the sort of piracy that the RIAA (and member companies) should fight against. THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes. THIS is the sort of copyright violation that the laws were written to combat.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ironically, those Bluebeat guys are the ones <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/beatles-for-salefor-25-a-track-but-is-it-legal.ars" title="arstechnica.com">arguing for mandatory DRM</a> [arstechnica.com] and suing all the music stores for using "inadequate DRM". A judge finds a company trying to promote their "unbreakable" DRM for copyright infringement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS is the sort of piracy that the RIAA ( and member companies ) should fight against .
THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes .
THIS is the sort of copyright violation that the laws were written to combat.Ironically , those Bluebeat guys are the ones arguing for mandatory DRM [ arstechnica.com ] and suing all the music stores for using " inadequate DRM " .
A judge finds a company trying to promote their " unbreakable " DRM for copyright infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THIS is the sort of piracy that the RIAA (and member companies) should fight against.
THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes.
THIS is the sort of copyright violation that the laws were written to combat.Ironically, those Bluebeat guys are the ones arguing for mandatory DRM [arstechnica.com] and suing all the music stores for using "inadequate DRM".
A judge finds a company trying to promote their "unbreakable" DRM for copyright infringement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007010</id>
	<title>Re:What kind of idiotic title is that anyway?</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1257531780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not just you, the headline is really bad.  However, this is a good time to point out that McCartny and EMI are shooting themselves in the foot by not making the Beatles catalog available online.  By actively fighting against all attempts to make a copyright friendly online distribution of the Beatles, they are just encouraging people to look at peer to peer for the music.  If they do not get off their high horse and start adapting to the changing times, they are going to find themselves in a very bad position when everyone thinks that download from peer to peer is perfectly fine (almost there already) and forget that there ever was a time when people purchased music on discs (slowly getting there too; people are awfully forgetful).<br> <br>

Yes, I know that there are more issues at play here, but really, the copyright holders are at fault, and nobody else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not just you , the headline is really bad .
However , this is a good time to point out that McCartny and EMI are shooting themselves in the foot by not making the Beatles catalog available online .
By actively fighting against all attempts to make a copyright friendly online distribution of the Beatles , they are just encouraging people to look at peer to peer for the music .
If they do not get off their high horse and start adapting to the changing times , they are going to find themselves in a very bad position when everyone thinks that download from peer to peer is perfectly fine ( almost there already ) and forget that there ever was a time when people purchased music on discs ( slowly getting there too ; people are awfully forgetful ) .
Yes , I know that there are more issues at play here , but really , the copyright holders are at fault , and nobody else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not just you, the headline is really bad.
However, this is a good time to point out that McCartny and EMI are shooting themselves in the foot by not making the Beatles catalog available online.
By actively fighting against all attempts to make a copyright friendly online distribution of the Beatles, they are just encouraging people to look at peer to peer for the music.
If they do not get off their high horse and start adapting to the changing times, they are going to find themselves in a very bad position when everyone thinks that download from peer to peer is perfectly fine (almost there already) and forget that there ever was a time when people purchased music on discs (slowly getting there too; people are awfully forgetful).
Yes, I know that there are more issues at play here, but really, the copyright holders are at fault, and nobody else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006466</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257528360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, in your expert opinion, <i>everyone</i> involved is wrong?</p></div><p>Wouldn't be the first time in a court room.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , in your expert opinion , everyone involved is wrong ? Would n't be the first time in a court room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, in your expert opinion, everyone involved is wrong?Wouldn't be the first time in a court room.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006278</id>
	<title>Procrastinating much?</title>
	<author>CrackedButter</author>
	<datestamp>1257527220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just wish EMI would hurry the fuck up and put the Beatles music online before everyone stops caring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wish EMI would hurry the fuck up and put the Beatles music online before everyone stops caring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wish EMI would hurry the fuck up and put the Beatles music online before everyone stops caring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30010534</id>
	<title>Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1257506040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Psycho-acoustic simulation sounds like a real good pseudo-science. Maybe they can create an agreement in exchange for some platinum covered cables!</p></div><p>No, it's just reverse engineering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Psycho-acoustic simulation sounds like a real good pseudo-science .
Maybe they can create an agreement in exchange for some platinum covered cables ! No , it 's just reverse engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psycho-acoustic simulation sounds like a real good pseudo-science.
Maybe they can create an agreement in exchange for some platinum covered cables!No, it's just reverse engineering.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008274</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sure in Santa Cruz, Ca it makes perfect sen</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1257538980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you've ever been to Santa Cruz then what the rest of the country would laugh at as ridiculous makes perfect sense there. I think its the magnetic waves from the Mystery Spot</p></div><p>Haha, good ol' Mystery Spot.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've ever been to Santa Cruz then what the rest of the country would laugh at as ridiculous makes perfect sense there .
I think its the magnetic waves from the Mystery SpotHaha , good ol ' Mystery Spot .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've ever been to Santa Cruz then what the rest of the country would laugh at as ridiculous makes perfect sense there.
I think its the magnetic waves from the Mystery SpotHaha, good ol' Mystery Spot.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30014278</id>
	<title>Yea emi morons. keep going.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1257609600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and screw the positive reputation you garnered by selling non-drm laden cds in the last decade despite you are a member of the mafiaa, by going the way other riaa cunts went. and observe how the attitude and behavior against you change on the net. and how will this affect 'other things' as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and screw the positive reputation you garnered by selling non-drm laden cds in the last decade despite you are a member of the mafiaa , by going the way other riaa cunts went .
and observe how the attitude and behavior against you change on the net .
and how will this affect 'other things ' as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and screw the positive reputation you garnered by selling non-drm laden cds in the last decade despite you are a member of the mafiaa, by going the way other riaa cunts went.
and observe how the attitude and behavior against you change on the net.
and how will this affect 'other things' as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070</id>
	<title>Santa Cruz, California</title>
	<author>winkydink</author>
	<datestamp>1257525960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>also known as the World's Largest Open Air Mental Institution.</p><p>P.S. Sorry, but you'll probably only get this if you've actually visited the place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>also known as the World 's Largest Open Air Mental Institution.P.S .
Sorry , but you 'll probably only get this if you 've actually visited the place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also known as the World's Largest Open Air Mental Institution.P.S.
Sorry, but you'll probably only get this if you've actually visited the place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006554</id>
	<title>Re:Santa Cruz, California</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257528900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Visited?!? Hell, I've lived there... and that is pretty much an accurate description. And let's not forget that Santa Cruz is where SCO started!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Visited ? ! ?
Hell , I 've lived there... and that is pretty much an accurate description .
And let 's not forget that Santa Cruz is where SCO started !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Visited?!?
Hell, I've lived there... and that is pretty much an accurate description.
And let's not forget that Santa Cruz is where SCO started!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006802</id>
	<title>Re:No, they didn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257530400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that fuckwads like this guy would try to sell it online, I don't think should be allowed.  If falls in the PD, then no one should be allowed to profit unless its for  REASONABLE distribution costs -- copieng burning etc..)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that fuckwads like this guy would try to sell it online , I do n't think should be allowed .
If falls in the PD , then no one should be allowed to profit unless its for REASONABLE distribution costs -- copieng burning etc.. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that fuckwads like this guy would try to sell it online, I don't think should be allowed.
If falls in the PD, then no one should be allowed to profit unless its for  REASONABLE distribution costs -- copieng burning etc..)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006358</id>
	<title>So RIAA can play nice!</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1257527700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Before taking <i>more agressive action</i>, I wanted to reach out to you because it struck me as odd that you would be running a site without licenses. [...] What's going on?</p></div><p>This quote is from the personal email by the <b>RIAA vice president</b>, read more here: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/22140609/Bluebeat-TRO-Opposition-Ex-A" title="scribd.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/22140609/Bluebeat-TRO-Opposition-Ex-A</a> [scribd.com] <br>
Read to the bottom of the conversation to find the nice way of kindly informing about the infringement without first sending the lawyer-hordes.<br> <br>

I would love to see him take such an open and inquiring attitude towards other pirates (a.k.a. normal consumers) and just listen to the community before unleashing his well known <i>more agressive action</i>.<br>
And even if he let's his lawyers send the pages of ALL CAPS LEGALESE, it would be nice to include the "<i>I hope you are doing well</i>" from the top.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before taking more agressive action , I wanted to reach out to you because it struck me as odd that you would be running a site without licenses .
[ ... ] What 's going on ? This quote is from the personal email by the RIAA vice president , read more here : http : //www.scribd.com/doc/22140609/Bluebeat-TRO-Opposition-Ex-A [ scribd.com ] Read to the bottom of the conversation to find the nice way of kindly informing about the infringement without first sending the lawyer-hordes .
I would love to see him take such an open and inquiring attitude towards other pirates ( a.k.a .
normal consumers ) and just listen to the community before unleashing his well known more agressive action .
And even if he let 's his lawyers send the pages of ALL CAPS LEGALESE , it would be nice to include the " I hope you are doing well " from the top .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before taking more agressive action, I wanted to reach out to you because it struck me as odd that you would be running a site without licenses.
[...] What's going on?This quote is from the personal email by the RIAA vice president, read more here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/22140609/Bluebeat-TRO-Opposition-Ex-A [scribd.com] 
Read to the bottom of the conversation to find the nice way of kindly informing about the infringement without first sending the lawyer-hordes.
I would love to see him take such an open and inquiring attitude towards other pirates (a.k.a.
normal consumers) and just listen to the community before unleashing his well known more agressive action.
And even if he let's his lawyers send the pages of ALL CAPS LEGALESE, it would be nice to include the "I hope you are doing well" from the top.
:)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006534</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257528780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess from your emphasis on THIS you are saying as opposed to fighting file sharers.  From the point of view of the copyright holder, exactly what is the difference?  Someone getting a copy of your song from someone other than you either effects you or it doesn't.  It either results in lost sales, or it doesn't. You either retain control of your work, or you don't. The motive of the distributor does not have any impact on you at all (maybe emotionally, but not financially).  Does one guy selling a few thousand copies of your song harm you any more than tens of thousands of people sharing your song?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess from your emphasis on THIS you are saying as opposed to fighting file sharers .
From the point of view of the copyright holder , exactly what is the difference ?
Someone getting a copy of your song from someone other than you either effects you or it does n't .
It either results in lost sales , or it does n't .
You either retain control of your work , or you do n't .
The motive of the distributor does not have any impact on you at all ( maybe emotionally , but not financially ) .
Does one guy selling a few thousand copies of your song harm you any more than tens of thousands of people sharing your song ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess from your emphasis on THIS you are saying as opposed to fighting file sharers.
From the point of view of the copyright holder, exactly what is the difference?
Someone getting a copy of your song from someone other than you either effects you or it doesn't.
It either results in lost sales, or it doesn't.
You either retain control of your work, or you don't.
The motive of the distributor does not have any impact on you at all (maybe emotionally, but not financially).
Does one guy selling a few thousand copies of your song harm you any more than tens of thousands of people sharing your song?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006860</id>
	<title>Lets help the beatles</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1257530820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets help the beatles eliminate that unauthorized distribution, and copying of their music by just not listening to it.</p><p>Their stuff is 40 years old; lets get something new and different and just leaven them alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets help the beatles eliminate that unauthorized distribution , and copying of their music by just not listening to it.Their stuff is 40 years old ; lets get something new and different and just leaven them alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets help the beatles eliminate that unauthorized distribution, and copying of their music by just not listening to it.Their stuff is 40 years old; lets get something new and different and just leaven them alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008596</id>
	<title>Reverse Engineering?</title>
	<author>Jainith</author>
	<datestamp>1257540480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story makes me wonder if something more complicated might be going on.</p><p>Imagine if you had a library of standard sounds (notes, chords etc. from different instruments)<br>and the various voice clips, and modifiers (echo, distortion etc...) needed to create an equivalent sound recording.</p><p>In effect an method for creating a virtual cover band.</p><p>So imagine you buy OMG\_Famous\_Track, ran it through some sort of computer program, which selects the best samples from your library in order to stitch together an equivalent sound recording. Then an human comes along and touches things up until its virtually indistinguishable from the original recording.</p><p>You then proceed to sell THE [ARTIST]'S - [TRACK] by [Company]. That is you sell the equivalent recording made up of all your properly owned samples, with a name that indicates that it should sound like the famous [ARTIST]s [TRACK].</p><p>Hell for all that work, I'd probably just start a site for cover bands.</p><p>Click on the track you want, we'll give you a list of cover's that we sell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story makes me wonder if something more complicated might be going on.Imagine if you had a library of standard sounds ( notes , chords etc .
from different instruments ) and the various voice clips , and modifiers ( echo , distortion etc... ) needed to create an equivalent sound recording.In effect an method for creating a virtual cover band.So imagine you buy OMG \ _Famous \ _Track , ran it through some sort of computer program , which selects the best samples from your library in order to stitch together an equivalent sound recording .
Then an human comes along and touches things up until its virtually indistinguishable from the original recording.You then proceed to sell THE [ ARTIST ] 'S - [ TRACK ] by [ Company ] .
That is you sell the equivalent recording made up of all your properly owned samples , with a name that indicates that it should sound like the famous [ ARTIST ] s [ TRACK ] .Hell for all that work , I 'd probably just start a site for cover bands.Click on the track you want , we 'll give you a list of cover 's that we sell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story makes me wonder if something more complicated might be going on.Imagine if you had a library of standard sounds (notes, chords etc.
from different instruments)and the various voice clips, and modifiers (echo, distortion etc...) needed to create an equivalent sound recording.In effect an method for creating a virtual cover band.So imagine you buy OMG\_Famous\_Track, ran it through some sort of computer program, which selects the best samples from your library in order to stitch together an equivalent sound recording.
Then an human comes along and touches things up until its virtually indistinguishable from the original recording.You then proceed to sell THE [ARTIST]'S - [TRACK] by [Company].
That is you sell the equivalent recording made up of all your properly owned samples, with a name that indicates that it should sound like the famous [ARTIST]s [TRACK].Hell for all that work, I'd probably just start a site for cover bands.Click on the track you want, we'll give you a list of cover's that we sell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006996</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1257531660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.</p></div><p>Hahaha I'm sorry, this one was very funny BadAnalogyGuy. Allow me let you in on a secret: professional lawyers don't give a shit about morals in court. They learn the legal system in order to play it in favor of their clients so that they get <i>paid</i>. It's a <i>job</i>, and you're a damn fool to even think for a second that they care about their clients other than how much money they make out of them. They get paid for getting their clients off the hook -- that's what they do, and that's what they'll always do, no matter if their client is RIAA, Hitler, Charles Manson, Ghandi, Martha Stewart or the god damn cookie monster himself -- period -- scene -- fin.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.Hahaha I 'm sorry , this one was very funny BadAnalogyGuy .
Allow me let you in on a secret : professional lawyers do n't give a shit about morals in court .
They learn the legal system in order to play it in favor of their clients so that they get paid .
It 's a job , and you 're a damn fool to even think for a second that they care about their clients other than how much money they make out of them .
They get paid for getting their clients off the hook -- that 's what they do , and that 's what they 'll always do , no matter if their client is RIAA , Hitler , Charles Manson , Ghandi , Martha Stewart or the god damn cookie monster himself -- period -- scene -- fin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.Hahaha I'm sorry, this one was very funny BadAnalogyGuy.
Allow me let you in on a secret: professional lawyers don't give a shit about morals in court.
They learn the legal system in order to play it in favor of their clients so that they get paid.
It's a job, and you're a damn fool to even think for a second that they care about their clients other than how much money they make out of them.
They get paid for getting their clients off the hook -- that's what they do, and that's what they'll always do, no matter if their client is RIAA, Hitler, Charles Manson, Ghandi, Martha Stewart or the god damn cookie monster himself -- period -- scene -- fin.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006272</id>
	<title>Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257527220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually sounds Psycho-acoustic simulation like a really good indie band.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually sounds Psycho-acoustic simulation like a really good indie band .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually sounds Psycho-acoustic simulation like a really good indie band.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007330</id>
	<title>Re:No, they didn't</title>
	<author>zildgulf</author>
	<datestamp>1257533520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you know?  Walt Disney will ensure that nothing made after Steamboat Willie will EVER become public domain if it has a copyright and Walt Disney is not dead, he died and the secret team from Disney World reanimated him decades ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you know ?
Walt Disney will ensure that nothing made after Steamboat Willie will EVER become public domain if it has a copyright and Walt Disney is not dead , he died and the secret team from Disney World reanimated him decades ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you know?
Walt Disney will ensure that nothing made after Steamboat Willie will EVER become public domain if it has a copyright and Walt Disney is not dead, he died and the secret team from Disney World reanimated him decades ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006496</id>
	<title>New copyright...</title>
	<author>TheDarAve</author>
	<datestamp>1257528540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I just added white noise to your song and copyrighted it as a derivative work! Next I'll add pink noise and call it the "Radio Remix" and copyright that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I just added white noise to your song and copyrighted it as a derivative work !
Next I 'll add pink noise and call it the " Radio Remix " and copyright that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I just added white noise to your song and copyrighted it as a derivative work!
Next I'll add pink noise and call it the "Radio Remix" and copyright that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007130</id>
	<title>Re:No, they didn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257532320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The true evil here is that the Beatles' music should be in the public domain by now; they broke up in 1971, almost forty years ago. You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now; that was, in fact, the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place.</p></div><p>40 years may be a long time for a 12 year old but for some of us it ain't that long ago.  You sound like someone who has never created.  If I build a house should it belong to the commons after "almost fourty years"?  If not is it simply because it is a tangable asset?  The music and the written word IS tangable. Maybe not to small minds, but it is tangible.  It is valuable and is an asset if done well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The true evil here is that the Beatles ' music should be in the public domain by now ; they broke up in 1971 , almost forty years ago .
You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now ; that was , in fact , the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place.40 years may be a long time for a 12 year old but for some of us it ai n't that long ago .
You sound like someone who has never created .
If I build a house should it belong to the commons after " almost fourty years " ?
If not is it simply because it is a tangable asset ?
The music and the written word IS tangable .
Maybe not to small minds , but it is tangible .
It is valuable and is an asset if done well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The true evil here is that the Beatles' music should be in the public domain by now; they broke up in 1971, almost forty years ago.
You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now; that was, in fact, the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place.40 years may be a long time for a 12 year old but for some of us it ain't that long ago.
You sound like someone who has never created.
If I build a house should it belong to the commons after "almost fourty years"?
If not is it simply because it is a tangable asset?
The music and the written word IS tangable.
Maybe not to small minds, but it is tangible.
It is valuable and is an asset if done well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007912</id>
	<title>Cap'n Crunch</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1257537180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't Cap'n Crunch (Draper) hang out there back in the day?  That kinda proves your point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Cap'n Crunch ( Draper ) hang out there back in the day ?
That kinda proves your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Cap'n Crunch (Draper) hang out there back in the day?
That kinda proves your point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008142</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1257538380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.</p></div><p>And they seem to be winning that fight.  Putting aside your subjective argument about morality, wouldn't you consider them to be greater experts on the current state of copyright law as a result?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy 's defense , but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.And they seem to be winning that fight .
Putting aside your subjective argument about morality , would n't you consider them to be greater experts on the current state of copyright law as a result ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.And they seem to be winning that fight.
Putting aside your subjective argument about morality, wouldn't you consider them to be greater experts on the current state of copyright law as a result?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007218</id>
	<title>Re:What kind of idiotic title is that anyway?</title>
	<author>zildgulf</author>
	<datestamp>1257532860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess this nutjob and poser Vanilla Ice will share the same level of hell in the afterlife.

Thanks to Vanilla Ice I refuse to hear David Bowie and Freddie Mercury duet "Pressure" (which is awesome) because some of the time it that poser's "Ice Ice Baby" song.  The intro 6 bars are 100\% identical and it repeats those bars over and over again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this nutjob and poser Vanilla Ice will share the same level of hell in the afterlife .
Thanks to Vanilla Ice I refuse to hear David Bowie and Freddie Mercury duet " Pressure " ( which is awesome ) because some of the time it that poser 's " Ice Ice Baby " song .
The intro 6 bars are 100 \ % identical and it repeats those bars over and over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this nutjob and poser Vanilla Ice will share the same level of hell in the afterlife.
Thanks to Vanilla Ice I refuse to hear David Bowie and Freddie Mercury duet "Pressure" (which is awesome) because some of the time it that poser's "Ice Ice Baby" song.
The intro 6 bars are 100\% identical and it repeats those bars over and over again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006208</id>
	<title>For Profit?</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1257526800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are we against this because he was selling the songs for profit?  If there wasn't a price tag attached to his download page it'd be OK and we'd be railing against the lawyers and laws right?  Just checking where our moral line falls today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we against this because he was selling the songs for profit ?
If there was n't a price tag attached to his download page it 'd be OK and we 'd be railing against the lawyers and laws right ?
Just checking where our moral line falls today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we against this because he was selling the songs for profit?
If there wasn't a price tag attached to his download page it'd be OK and we'd be railing against the lawyers and laws right?
Just checking where our moral line falls today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006708</id>
	<title>Re:Santa Cruz, California</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257529800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think it's a joke, but actually a lot of the homeless there were institutionalized before Reagan closed the facilities and kicked them out back in the 70s.</p><p>That said, I'd caution that the vast majority aren't a threat to anyone but themselves, and there are a lot of quite reasonable people in the city and the area as well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think it 's a joke , but actually a lot of the homeless there were institutionalized before Reagan closed the facilities and kicked them out back in the 70s.That said , I 'd caution that the vast majority are n't a threat to anyone but themselves , and there are a lot of quite reasonable people in the city and the area as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think it's a joke, but actually a lot of the homeless there were institutionalized before Reagan closed the facilities and kicked them out back in the 70s.That said, I'd caution that the vast majority aren't a threat to anyone but themselves, and there are a lot of quite reasonable people in the city and the area as well...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007770</id>
	<title>Re:No, they didn't</title>
	<author>Tsujiku</author>
	<datestamp>1257536280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When it's in the public domain, you can do whatever the hell you want with it. You can sell it for however much you want... But guess what... Someone else is going to give it away for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When it 's in the public domain , you can do whatever the hell you want with it .
You can sell it for however much you want... But guess what... Someone else is going to give it away for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it's in the public domain, you can do whatever the hell you want with it.
You can sell it for however much you want... But guess what... Someone else is going to give it away for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007284</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy</title>
	<author>zildgulf</author>
	<datestamp>1257533280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>RIAA are hypocrites.   They persecute people that have been shown not to have downloaded ANY music while they let this nutjob make major $$$$ off of the Beatles library he doesn't own.

But because Sony doesn't own the rights to the Beatles songs, yet, Sony the RIAA doesn't f*ck*ng care.  I know if I was likely to be able to buy some good forestland and some yahoo decides to illegal cut down the trees on that land I would be outraged!  That is exactly the position Sony is in and they don't give a f*ck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA are hypocrites .
They persecute people that have been shown not to have downloaded ANY music while they let this nutjob make major $ $ $ $ off of the Beatles library he does n't own .
But because Sony does n't own the rights to the Beatles songs , yet , Sony the RIAA does n't f * ck * ng care .
I know if I was likely to be able to buy some good forestland and some yahoo decides to illegal cut down the trees on that land I would be outraged !
That is exactly the position Sony is in and they do n't give a f * ck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA are hypocrites.
They persecute people that have been shown not to have downloaded ANY music while they let this nutjob make major $$$$ off of the Beatles library he doesn't own.
But because Sony doesn't own the rights to the Beatles songs, yet, Sony the RIAA doesn't f*ck*ng care.
I know if I was likely to be able to buy some good forestland and some yahoo decides to illegal cut down the trees on that land I would be outraged!
That is exactly the position Sony is in and they don't give a f*ck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007474</id>
	<title>Re:For Profit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257534540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please provide a citation of a single case where someone was sued for sharing with friends (using a normal definition of friend as someone you personally know).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please provide a citation of a single case where someone was sued for sharing with friends ( using a normal definition of friend as someone you personally know ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please provide a citation of a single case where someone was sued for sharing with friends (using a normal definition of friend as someone you personally know).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007760</id>
	<title>Re:Lucy in the Sky with Patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257536220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Timothy Leary was born a few decades later, he'd <b>patent psychedelic trips</b>. Then we'd be stuck in the bland 50's forever singing doo-wap tunes.</p></div><p>Now, for the first time in ages, you made me see some good in the patent system. Too bad it didn't happen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Timothy Leary was born a few decades later , he 'd patent psychedelic trips .
Then we 'd be stuck in the bland 50 's forever singing doo-wap tunes.Now , for the first time in ages , you made me see some good in the patent system .
Too bad it did n't happen ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Timothy Leary was born a few decades later, he'd patent psychedelic trips.
Then we'd be stuck in the bland 50's forever singing doo-wap tunes.Now, for the first time in ages, you made me see some good in the patent system.
Too bad it didn't happen ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30011754</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy</title>
	<author>cpt kangarooski</author>
	<datestamp>1257517140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there is a connection in that the effect of copyright as a whole must be to serve the public interest. This includes the length of terms as well as the ease of enforcement, the available remedies, etc. We certainly should not encourage copyright holders to sue for infringement of their rights any more or less than the amount that would produce the most optimal outcome for the public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is a connection in that the effect of copyright as a whole must be to serve the public interest .
This includes the length of terms as well as the ease of enforcement , the available remedies , etc .
We certainly should not encourage copyright holders to sue for infringement of their rights any more or less than the amount that would produce the most optimal outcome for the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there is a connection in that the effect of copyright as a whole must be to serve the public interest.
This includes the length of terms as well as the ease of enforcement, the available remedies, etc.
We certainly should not encourage copyright holders to sue for infringement of their rights any more or less than the amount that would produce the most optimal outcome for the public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006388</id>
	<title>Re:All you need is Love</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257527820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I breathe love?<br>Can I drink love?<br>Can I eat love?<br>Can I make a shelter out of love?</p><p>GTFO, hippie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I breathe love ? Can I drink love ? Can I eat love ? Can I make a shelter out of love ? GTFO , hippie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I breathe love?Can I drink love?Can I eat love?Can I make a shelter out of love?GTFO, hippie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006140</id>
	<title>All you need is Love</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257526380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006356</id>
	<title>Check this guys backyard....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257527700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone needs to check this guys backyard for hidden tents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone needs to check this guys backyard for hidden tents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone needs to check this guys backyard for hidden tents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006168</id>
	<title>Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257526500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the old copyright case where you had "Achy Breaky Heart" and "Achy Breakin Heart" many, many years ago...</p><p>If you added backmasking, or subliminal messages to an audio recording, does that count as altering the work significantly enough to make it your own? If that's what psycho-acoustic stimulation is, he might have more of a case than we thought.</p><p>Or that could be what the Abby Road album told me when I played it backwards...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the old copyright case where you had " Achy Breaky Heart " and " Achy Breakin Heart " many , many years ago...If you added backmasking , or subliminal messages to an audio recording , does that count as altering the work significantly enough to make it your own ?
If that 's what psycho-acoustic stimulation is , he might have more of a case than we thought.Or that could be what the Abby Road album told me when I played it backwards.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the old copyright case where you had "Achy Breaky Heart" and "Achy Breakin Heart" many, many years ago...If you added backmasking, or subliminal messages to an audio recording, does that count as altering the work significantly enough to make it your own?
If that's what psycho-acoustic stimulation is, he might have more of a case than we thought.Or that could be what the Abby Road album told me when I played it backwards...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30030778</id>
	<title>Re:Santa Cruz, California</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1257767460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>also known as the World's Largest Open Air Mental Institution.</p></div><p>I believe you are referring to Jerusalem and they even have a name for that mental disease: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem\_syndrome" title="wikipedia.org">the Jerusalem syndrome</a> [wikipedia.org]. Although I tend to nickname it 'religion'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>also known as the World 's Largest Open Air Mental Institution.I believe you are referring to Jerusalem and they even have a name for that mental disease : the Jerusalem syndrome [ wikipedia.org ] .
Although I tend to nickname it 'religion' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also known as the World's Largest Open Air Mental Institution.I believe you are referring to Jerusalem and they even have a name for that mental disease: the Jerusalem syndrome [wikipedia.org].
Although I tend to nickname it 'religion'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144</id>
	<title>Piracy</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1257526380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>THIS is the sort of piracy that the RIAA (and member companies) should fight against. THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes. THIS is the sort of copyright violation that the laws were written to combat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS is the sort of piracy that the RIAA ( and member companies ) should fight against .
THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes .
THIS is the sort of copyright violation that the laws were written to combat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THIS is the sort of piracy that the RIAA (and member companies) should fight against.
THIS is the sort of piracy that I think any intelligent human being opposes.
THIS is the sort of copyright violation that the laws were written to combat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006294</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy</title>
	<author>mishehu</author>
	<datestamp>1257527280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree, but would like to add that a) I have no mod points for you right now unfortunately, and b) the term of copyright needs to be severely limited to a reasonable time period.  I'd suggest 14 years with one 14 year extension (hefty fee involved)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree , but would like to add that a ) I have no mod points for you right now unfortunately , and b ) the term of copyright needs to be severely limited to a reasonable time period .
I 'd suggest 14 years with one 14 year extension ( hefty fee involved ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree, but would like to add that a) I have no mod points for you right now unfortunately, and b) the term of copyright needs to be severely limited to a reasonable time period.
I'd suggest 14 years with one 14 year extension (hefty fee involved)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006076</id>
	<title>Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTunes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257526020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Psycho-acoustic simulation sounds like a real good pseudo-science. Maybe they can create an agreement in exchange for some platinum covered cables!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Psycho-acoustic simulation sounds like a real good pseudo-science .
Maybe they can create an agreement in exchange for some platinum covered cables !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psycho-acoustic simulation sounds like a real good pseudo-science.
Maybe they can create an agreement in exchange for some platinum covered cables!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006472</id>
	<title>Re:No, they didn't</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1257528420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>they broke up in 1971, almost forty years ago. You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now; that was, in fact, the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place.</i> <br> <br>
Leaving aside the fact that the Beatles were a British band, and therefore not subject to Congress, EMI has apparently been recently doing its own resampling of their albums. So maybe they're infringing on their own copyright?<br> <br>*ducks*</htmltext>
<tokenext>they broke up in 1971 , almost forty years ago .
You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now ; that was , in fact , the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place .
Leaving aside the fact that the Beatles were a British band , and therefore not subject to Congress , EMI has apparently been recently doing its own resampling of their albums .
So maybe they 're infringing on their own copyright ?
* ducks *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they broke up in 1971, almost forty years ago.
You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now; that was, in fact, the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place.
Leaving aside the fact that the Beatles were a British band, and therefore not subject to Congress, EMI has apparently been recently doing its own resampling of their albums.
So maybe they're infringing on their own copyright?
*ducks*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006120</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257526200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.</p><p>I wouldn't put too much weight on what they think.</p><p>As for this guy in the article, it's pretty clear he was just trying to make a buck by ripping off the Beatles' music. I'm surprised that the judge didn't hand down a larger fine, actually. His "psycho-acoustic simulation" argument was laughable at best. Facepalm worthy, at least.</p></div><p>So, in your expert opinion, <i>everyone</i> involved is wrong?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy 's defense , but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.I would n't put too much weight on what they think.As for this guy in the article , it 's pretty clear he was just trying to make a buck by ripping off the Beatles ' music .
I 'm surprised that the judge did n't hand down a larger fine , actually .
His " psycho-acoustic simulation " argument was laughable at best .
Facepalm worthy , at least.So , in your expert opinion , everyone involved is wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.I wouldn't put too much weight on what they think.As for this guy in the article, it's pretty clear he was just trying to make a buck by ripping off the Beatles' music.
I'm surprised that the judge didn't hand down a larger fine, actually.
His "psycho-acoustic simulation" argument was laughable at best.
Facepalm worthy, at least.So, in your expert opinion, everyone involved is wrong?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006134</id>
	<title>I'm sure in Santa Cruz, Ca it makes perfect sense</title>
	<author>killdozer3k</author>
	<datestamp>1257526320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you've ever been to Santa Cruz then what the rest of the country would laugh at as ridiculous makes perfect sense there. I think its the magnetic waves from the Mystery Spot</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've ever been to Santa Cruz then what the rest of the country would laugh at as ridiculous makes perfect sense there .
I think its the magnetic waves from the Mystery Spot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've ever been to Santa Cruz then what the rest of the country would laugh at as ridiculous makes perfect sense there.
I think its the magnetic waves from the Mystery Spot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30010226</id>
	<title>Intersting Ars article on BlueBeat</title>
	<author>donatzsky</author>
	<datestamp>1257504240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/beatles-for-salefor-25-a-track-but-is-it-legal.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">Here</a> [arstechnica.com]<br>Let's just say that BlueBeat is an interesting company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here [ arstechnica.com ] Let 's just say that BlueBeat is an interesting company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here [arstechnica.com]Let's just say that BlueBeat is an interesting company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007400</id>
	<title>Psycho-acoustics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257534060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Psycho-acoustics doesn't have anything to do with compression. It is a methodology of making something sound like it's coming from somewhere other than where its really coming from, such as surround sound from two speakers. This is usually done by delaying and attenuating different frequency components of a sound to fool the brain that the sound has been delayed and attenuated by reflection off the outer ear by coming in from a particular direction that it otherwise is not coming from.</p><p>This is most effective when done during live recording where each sound component can be treated discreetly, placing them in any direction in a sphere around the listener. Singer in front, drummer in back, horn above, bass below, guitar left, keyboard right, etc.</p><p>Changing the format through file compression actually is detremental to Psycho-acoustics. It works better the higher the resolution (Sample depth, rate)and is optimal in analog.coming from somewhere other than where its really coming from, such as surround sound from two speakers. This is usually done by delaying and attenuating different frequency components of a sound to fool the brain that the sound has been delayed and attenuated by reflection off the outer ear by coming in from a particular direction that it otherwise is not coming from.</p><p>This is most effective when done during live recording where each sound component can be treated discreetly, placing them in any direction in a sphere around the listener. Singer in front, drummer in back, horn above, bass below, guitar left, keyboard right, etc.</p><p>Changing the format through file compression actually is detremental to Psycho-acoustics. It works better the higher the resolution (Sample depth, rate)and is optimal in analog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Psycho-acoustics does n't have anything to do with compression .
It is a methodology of making something sound like it 's coming from somewhere other than where its really coming from , such as surround sound from two speakers .
This is usually done by delaying and attenuating different frequency components of a sound to fool the brain that the sound has been delayed and attenuated by reflection off the outer ear by coming in from a particular direction that it otherwise is not coming from.This is most effective when done during live recording where each sound component can be treated discreetly , placing them in any direction in a sphere around the listener .
Singer in front , drummer in back , horn above , bass below , guitar left , keyboard right , etc.Changing the format through file compression actually is detremental to Psycho-acoustics .
It works better the higher the resolution ( Sample depth , rate ) and is optimal in analog.coming from somewhere other than where its really coming from , such as surround sound from two speakers .
This is usually done by delaying and attenuating different frequency components of a sound to fool the brain that the sound has been delayed and attenuated by reflection off the outer ear by coming in from a particular direction that it otherwise is not coming from.This is most effective when done during live recording where each sound component can be treated discreetly , placing them in any direction in a sphere around the listener .
Singer in front , drummer in back , horn above , bass below , guitar left , keyboard right , etc.Changing the format through file compression actually is detremental to Psycho-acoustics .
It works better the higher the resolution ( Sample depth , rate ) and is optimal in analog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psycho-acoustics doesn't have anything to do with compression.
It is a methodology of making something sound like it's coming from somewhere other than where its really coming from, such as surround sound from two speakers.
This is usually done by delaying and attenuating different frequency components of a sound to fool the brain that the sound has been delayed and attenuated by reflection off the outer ear by coming in from a particular direction that it otherwise is not coming from.This is most effective when done during live recording where each sound component can be treated discreetly, placing them in any direction in a sphere around the listener.
Singer in front, drummer in back, horn above, bass below, guitar left, keyboard right, etc.Changing the format through file compression actually is detremental to Psycho-acoustics.
It works better the higher the resolution (Sample depth, rate)and is optimal in analog.coming from somewhere other than where its really coming from, such as surround sound from two speakers.
This is usually done by delaying and attenuating different frequency components of a sound to fool the brain that the sound has been delayed and attenuated by reflection off the outer ear by coming in from a particular direction that it otherwise is not coming from.This is most effective when done during live recording where each sound component can be treated discreetly, placing them in any direction in a sphere around the listener.
Singer in front, drummer in back, horn above, bass below, guitar left, keyboard right, etc.Changing the format through file compression actually is detremental to Psycho-acoustics.
It works better the higher the resolution (Sample depth, rate)and is optimal in analog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007946</id>
	<title>Re:What is PAS?</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1257537420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the real joke is, there are bands that are so identical sounding to The Beatles that no one is very likely to tell them apart. Seriously. There are note perfect 'cover' bands. You can run their damn music through those 'acoustic  fingerprinting' programs and it will register as The Beatles song.</p><p>
He could have just recorded one of <b>them</b> and sold their music. Maybe 10\% of the people would notice it wasn't the original, off-the-album recording they're used to, and maybe 1\% would notice it wasn't The Beatles at all.</p><p>
But the problem there is, I suspect, he'd have to pay them. (Also I think he was trying to keep from paying lyric and music licensing fees either.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the real joke is , there are bands that are so identical sounding to The Beatles that no one is very likely to tell them apart .
Seriously. There are note perfect 'cover ' bands .
You can run their damn music through those 'acoustic fingerprinting ' programs and it will register as The Beatles song .
He could have just recorded one of them and sold their music .
Maybe 10 \ % of the people would notice it was n't the original , off-the-album recording they 're used to , and maybe 1 \ % would notice it was n't The Beatles at all .
But the problem there is , I suspect , he 'd have to pay them .
( Also I think he was trying to keep from paying lyric and music licensing fees either .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the real joke is, there are bands that are so identical sounding to The Beatles that no one is very likely to tell them apart.
Seriously. There are note perfect 'cover' bands.
You can run their damn music through those 'acoustic  fingerprinting' programs and it will register as The Beatles song.
He could have just recorded one of them and sold their music.
Maybe 10\% of the people would notice it wasn't the original, off-the-album recording they're used to, and maybe 1\% would notice it wasn't The Beatles at all.
But the problem there is, I suspect, he'd have to pay them.
(Also I think he was trying to keep from paying lyric and music licensing fees either.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006528</id>
	<title>Re:No, they didn't</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1257528780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; The true evil here is that the Beatles' music should be in the public domain by now; they broke up in 1971, almost forty years ago. You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now; that was, in fact, the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place.</p><p>yes, the moral defense is better than the technical one.</p><p>is anyone currently using the moral defense for work where copyright should have expired by now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The true evil here is that the Beatles ' music should be in the public domain by now ; they broke up in 1971 , almost forty years ago .
You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now ; that was , in fact , the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place.yes , the moral defense is better than the technical one.is anyone currently using the moral defense for work where copyright should have expired by now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; The true evil here is that the Beatles' music should be in the public domain by now; they broke up in 1971, almost forty years ago.
You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now; that was, in fact, the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place.yes, the moral defense is better than the technical one.is anyone currently using the moral defense for work where copyright should have expired by now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006574</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1257528960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do realize that a debate about the length of copyright is a different discussion from enforcement of copyright, right? Some of us think that the length of copyright should be dramatically shortened (to say the least...) AND also think that copyright holders should be encouraged to protect their copyrights when someone breaks copyright for the sole purpose of turning a profit. The two are completely different discussions. You are aware of that, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that a debate about the length of copyright is a different discussion from enforcement of copyright , right ?
Some of us think that the length of copyright should be dramatically shortened ( to say the least... ) AND also think that copyright holders should be encouraged to protect their copyrights when someone breaks copyright for the sole purpose of turning a profit .
The two are completely different discussions .
You are aware of that , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that a debate about the length of copyright is a different discussion from enforcement of copyright, right?
Some of us think that the length of copyright should be dramatically shortened (to say the least...) AND also think that copyright holders should be encouraged to protect their copyrights when someone breaks copyright for the sole purpose of turning a profit.
The two are completely different discussions.
You are aware of that, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176</id>
	<title>No, they didn't</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257526560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually RTFA, and Beatles music is still available in internet jukeboxes. What happened is some guy tried to twist copyright law in a foolish and illogical way, saying that resampled Beatles songs are his, and he actually registered copyrights of them. The judge PREDICTABLY and logically ruled against him. I'd have laughed him out of court.</p><p>EMI holds the real copyrights, sued, and won. The guy posting Beatles songs was clearly in the wrong. As is the summary.</p><p>The true evil here is that the Beatles' music should be in the public domain by now; they broke up in 1971, almost forty years ago. You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now; that was, in fact, the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually RTFA , and Beatles music is still available in internet jukeboxes .
What happened is some guy tried to twist copyright law in a foolish and illogical way , saying that resampled Beatles songs are his , and he actually registered copyrights of them .
The judge PREDICTABLY and logically ruled against him .
I 'd have laughed him out of court.EMI holds the real copyrights , sued , and won .
The guy posting Beatles songs was clearly in the wrong .
As is the summary.The true evil here is that the Beatles ' music should be in the public domain by now ; they broke up in 1971 , almost forty years ago .
You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now ; that was , in fact , the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually RTFA, and Beatles music is still available in internet jukeboxes.
What happened is some guy tried to twist copyright law in a foolish and illogical way, saying that resampled Beatles songs are his, and he actually registered copyrights of them.
The judge PREDICTABLY and logically ruled against him.
I'd have laughed him out of court.EMI holds the real copyrights, sued, and won.
The guy posting Beatles songs was clearly in the wrong.
As is the summary.The true evil here is that the Beatles' music should be in the public domain by now; they broke up in 1971, almost forty years ago.
You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now; that was, in fact, the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30012450</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy</title>
	<author>megrims</author>
	<datestamp>1257528300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, the two different discussions that you've mentioned are examples of the proposed solutions to the the problem of copyright (as it exists today), so it is all part of the same discussion. And based on my limited sample-set, most of us would be happy with a change in either direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , the two different discussions that you 've mentioned are examples of the proposed solutions to the the problem of copyright ( as it exists today ) , so it is all part of the same discussion .
And based on my limited sample-set , most of us would be happy with a change in either direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, the two different discussions that you've mentioned are examples of the proposed solutions to the the problem of copyright (as it exists today), so it is all part of the same discussion.
And based on my limited sample-set, most of us would be happy with a change in either direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007384</id>
	<title>A hA!</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1257533880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Due to a process I invented I call "Pseudo-Digital Misanthropy" I now claim ownership of slashdot. You all owe me back user fees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Due to a process I invented I call " Pseudo-Digital Misanthropy " I now claim ownership of slashdot .
You all owe me back user fees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Due to a process I invented I call "Pseudo-Digital Misanthropy" I now claim ownership of slashdot.
You all owe me back user fees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007198</id>
	<title>The best part? A Direct line to RIAA.</title>
	<author>pdxp</author>
	<datestamp>1257532740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, I did RTFA, and also some public court documents.
<br> <br>
Well, Mr. Steven Marks, representing the "Executive Vice President &amp; General Counsel" of the RIAA has decided to share his email with us, so please everyone, please feel free to send him your thoughts, feeling, etc on the subject of music copyrights, which may include but mot be limited to pictures of feces if you deem it to be appropriate.
<br> <br>
SMarks@riaa.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I did RTFA , and also some public court documents .
Well , Mr. Steven Marks , representing the " Executive Vice President &amp; General Counsel " of the RIAA has decided to share his email with us , so please everyone , please feel free to send him your thoughts , feeling , etc on the subject of music copyrights , which may include but mot be limited to pictures of feces if you deem it to be appropriate .
SMarks @ riaa.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I did RTFA, and also some public court documents.
Well, Mr. Steven Marks, representing the "Executive Vice President &amp; General Counsel" of the RIAA has decided to share his email with us, so please everyone, please feel free to send him your thoughts, feeling, etc on the subject of music copyrights, which may include but mot be limited to pictures of feces if you deem it to be appropriate.
SMarks@riaa.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006330</id>
	<title>Re:What kind of idiotic title is that anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257527520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you read an article titled, "EMI Sues Copyright Infringer"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you read an article titled , " EMI Sues Copyright Infringer "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you read an article titled, "EMI Sues Copyright Infringer"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008014</id>
	<title>He needed to read this:</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1257537780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php" title="sooke.bc.ca">What Colour are your bits?</a> [sooke.bc.ca].</p><p>
He thought mathematically turning bits into something else could alter their color, a classic mistake when programmers try to apply computer science to copyright law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What Colour are your bits ?
[ sooke.bc.ca ] . He thought mathematically turning bits into something else could alter their color , a classic mistake when programmers try to apply computer science to copyright law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What Colour are your bits?
[sooke.bc.ca].
He thought mathematically turning bits into something else could alter their color, a classic mistake when programmers try to apply computer science to copyright law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007248</id>
	<title>Psychoacoustic Simulation</title>
	<author>Onymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1257533100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, I get it.  "Psychoacoustic Simulation" means he compressed it with MP3.  See?  It's not the same anymore.</p><p>One might call this the "lame" defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I get it .
" Psychoacoustic Simulation " means he compressed it with MP3 .
See ? It 's not the same anymore.One might call this the " lame " defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I get it.
"Psychoacoustic Simulation" means he compressed it with MP3.
See?  It's not the same anymore.One might call this the "lame" defense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30010922</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers</title>
	<author>shark72</author>
	<datestamp>1257508620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads."</i> </p><p>Huh? One of the fellows quoted was Ben Sheffner. He's very level-headed and insightful, and his blog is a good read for anybody tired of the Slashdot/Torrentfreak/Digg copyright misinformation echo chamber. Scott Mackenzie has tried a number of consumer advocacy cases. Your statement makes about as much sense as stating that NYCL or CptKangarooski think file sharing is immoral just because they also happen to be lawyers with expertise in copyright law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy 's defense , but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads .
" Huh ?
One of the fellows quoted was Ben Sheffner .
He 's very level-headed and insightful , and his blog is a good read for anybody tired of the Slashdot/Torrentfreak/Digg copyright misinformation echo chamber .
Scott Mackenzie has tried a number of consumer advocacy cases .
Your statement makes about as much sense as stating that NYCL or CptKangarooski think file sharing is immoral just because they also happen to be lawyers with expertise in copyright law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.
" Huh?
One of the fellows quoted was Ben Sheffner.
He's very level-headed and insightful, and his blog is a good read for anybody tired of the Slashdot/Torrentfreak/Digg copyright misinformation echo chamber.
Scott Mackenzie has tried a number of consumer advocacy cases.
Your statement makes about as much sense as stating that NYCL or CptKangarooski think file sharing is immoral just because they also happen to be lawyers with expertise in copyright law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006434</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1257528120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.</p><p>I wouldn't put too much weight on what they think.</p></div><p>What is <em>legal</em> or not, and what is <em>right</em> or not are often completely different. These lawyers may have some rather screwy ideas about the latter, but it's their <em>job</em> to have a very good understanding of the former. So when the former is what's under discussion, what they think probably should carry a bit of weight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy 's defense , but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.I would n't put too much weight on what they think.What is legal or not , and what is right or not are often completely different .
These lawyers may have some rather screwy ideas about the latter , but it 's their job to have a very good understanding of the former .
So when the former is what 's under discussion , what they think probably should carry a bit of weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.I wouldn't put too much weight on what they think.What is legal or not, and what is right or not are often completely different.
These lawyers may have some rather screwy ideas about the latter, but it's their job to have a very good understanding of the former.
So when the former is what's under discussion, what they think probably should carry a bit of weight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006448</id>
	<title>Re:For Profit?</title>
	<author>Xtravar</author>
	<datestamp>1257528180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy obviously knew he was doing something wrong and was trying to circumvent copyright law by claiming he held the copyright on Beatles song.</p><p>That is completely different from sharin' some songs with your friends.</p><p>See the difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy obviously knew he was doing something wrong and was trying to circumvent copyright law by claiming he held the copyright on Beatles song.That is completely different from sharin ' some songs with your friends.See the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy obviously knew he was doing something wrong and was trying to circumvent copyright law by claiming he held the copyright on Beatles song.That is completely different from sharin' some songs with your friends.See the difference?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006214</id>
	<title>Debugging</title>
	<author>AioKits</author>
	<datestamp>1257526800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it safe to say this is an action of debugging for the whole internet?  They did remove some Beatles after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it safe to say this is an action of debugging for the whole internet ?
They did remove some Beatles after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it safe to say this is an action of debugging for the whole internet?
They did remove some Beatles after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006582</id>
	<title>Re:What is PAS?</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1257529020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about the "simulation" part, but the "psycho-acoustic" thingy has been a useful device for peddling snake-oil about the requirement for "burning-in" of expensive cables in hi-fi systems. My own feeling about the latter is that the burn-in process definitely makes a difference for essentially mechanical components like speakers and turntable cartridges, but I just can't bring myself to believe much of the voodoo about cables.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the " simulation " part , but the " psycho-acoustic " thingy has been a useful device for peddling snake-oil about the requirement for " burning-in " of expensive cables in hi-fi systems .
My own feeling about the latter is that the burn-in process definitely makes a difference for essentially mechanical components like speakers and turntable cartridges , but I just ca n't bring myself to believe much of the voodoo about cables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the "simulation" part, but the "psycho-acoustic" thingy has been a useful device for peddling snake-oil about the requirement for "burning-in" of expensive cables in hi-fi systems.
My own feeling about the latter is that the burn-in process definitely makes a difference for essentially mechanical components like speakers and turntable cartridges, but I just can't bring myself to believe much of the voodoo about cables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006196</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30010922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30012450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30010534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30011754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30030778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1522259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30010922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006574
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30012450
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30011754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30010534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1522259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30008232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30006708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30030778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1522259.30007912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
