<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_30_0240254</id>
	<title>Italy May Censor Torrent Sites</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262167860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Following a <a href="https://news.slashdot.org/story/08/08/10/1934231/The-Pirate-Bay-Blocked-In-Italy">Pirate Bay block</a> more than a year ago, Italy continues its attempts to censor torrent sites. The Italian Supreme Court has ruled that <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-sites-may-be-censored-in-italy-091227/">copyright holders can now force ISPs to block BitTorrent sites</a>, even if they are hosted outside Italy. The torrent sites which 'hold' copyrighted materials are accused of taking part in criminal activity. It seems someone should enlighten Italian jurists about technology."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Following a Pirate Bay block more than a year ago , Italy continues its attempts to censor torrent sites .
The Italian Supreme Court has ruled that copyright holders can now force ISPs to block BitTorrent sites , even if they are hosted outside Italy .
The torrent sites which 'hold ' copyrighted materials are accused of taking part in criminal activity .
It seems someone should enlighten Italian jurists about technology .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Following a Pirate Bay block more than a year ago, Italy continues its attempts to censor torrent sites.
The Italian Supreme Court has ruled that copyright holders can now force ISPs to block BitTorrent sites, even if they are hosted outside Italy.
The torrent sites which 'hold' copyrighted materials are accused of taking part in criminal activity.
It seems someone should enlighten Italian jurists about technology.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594686</id>
	<title>Re:Enlighten about technology?</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1259860080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the problem here is the legal and political clout wielded by the old media industry, combined with the fact that their business model is so out of tune with the realities of the internet. When your cost structure doesn't allow you to be profitable selling electronic copies at $1.00 instead of disks at $20, you have to resort to other means to stay in business. Hence the heavy-handed attempts to stifle competition.</p><p>Mind you, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the full-blown pirates either. Maybe if you charged $1.00 a copy and paid money to charitable organizations for impoverished Blues and Jazz musicians who were ripped off by the record labels, I'd be on board. The artists need to be compensated or there won't be any art.</p><p>In some ways it's like the software engineers in the US and Europe who still expect to make $80k-$120k when companies can get multiple engineers and programmers in China and India for the same cost. The internet has changed our competitive landscape, but many of us still haven't adjusted. Even the authors of open source software typically have to keep their day jobs to pay the bills. The problems related to funding software developers in the future landscape are remarkably similar to the issues facing musicians and artists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the problem here is the legal and political clout wielded by the old media industry , combined with the fact that their business model is so out of tune with the realities of the internet .
When your cost structure does n't allow you to be profitable selling electronic copies at $ 1.00 instead of disks at $ 20 , you have to resort to other means to stay in business .
Hence the heavy-handed attempts to stifle competition.Mind you , I do n't have a lot of sympathy for the full-blown pirates either .
Maybe if you charged $ 1.00 a copy and paid money to charitable organizations for impoverished Blues and Jazz musicians who were ripped off by the record labels , I 'd be on board .
The artists need to be compensated or there wo n't be any art.In some ways it 's like the software engineers in the US and Europe who still expect to make $ 80k- $ 120k when companies can get multiple engineers and programmers in China and India for the same cost .
The internet has changed our competitive landscape , but many of us still have n't adjusted .
Even the authors of open source software typically have to keep their day jobs to pay the bills .
The problems related to funding software developers in the future landscape are remarkably similar to the issues facing musicians and artists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the problem here is the legal and political clout wielded by the old media industry, combined with the fact that their business model is so out of tune with the realities of the internet.
When your cost structure doesn't allow you to be profitable selling electronic copies at $1.00 instead of disks at $20, you have to resort to other means to stay in business.
Hence the heavy-handed attempts to stifle competition.Mind you, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the full-blown pirates either.
Maybe if you charged $1.00 a copy and paid money to charitable organizations for impoverished Blues and Jazz musicians who were ripped off by the record labels, I'd be on board.
The artists need to be compensated or there won't be any art.In some ways it's like the software engineers in the US and Europe who still expect to make $80k-$120k when companies can get multiple engineers and programmers in China and India for the same cost.
The internet has changed our competitive landscape, but many of us still haven't adjusted.
Even the authors of open source software typically have to keep their day jobs to pay the bills.
The problems related to funding software developers in the future landscape are remarkably similar to the issues facing musicians and artists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30595338</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1259862060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Like most people (here at least!) I'm not happy about the way the big media companies are rail-roading governments around the world to shore up their failing businesses</i> </p><p>The geek wants his free movie fix.</p><p>The politician wants to see $200 million dollar productions with significant potential for a return in both domestic and foreign markets. These translate instantly into jobs and taxable income. Numbers he can take to the voters.</p><p>He wants to be remembered as the man who landed Pixar for his home district. The one who made Toronto or Vancouver Hollywood North. </p><p>There is also the nationalist impulse to keep his native culture from being overwealmed by cheap foreign imports.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like most people ( here at least !
) I 'm not happy about the way the big media companies are rail-roading governments around the world to shore up their failing businesses The geek wants his free movie fix.The politician wants to see $ 200 million dollar productions with significant potential for a return in both domestic and foreign markets .
These translate instantly into jobs and taxable income .
Numbers he can take to the voters.He wants to be remembered as the man who landed Pixar for his home district .
The one who made Toronto or Vancouver Hollywood North .
There is also the nationalist impulse to keep his native culture from being overwealmed by cheap foreign imports .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like most people (here at least!
) I'm not happy about the way the big media companies are rail-roading governments around the world to shore up their failing businesses The geek wants his free movie fix.The politician wants to see $200 million dollar productions with significant potential for a return in both domestic and foreign markets.
These translate instantly into jobs and taxable income.
Numbers he can take to the voters.He wants to be remembered as the man who landed Pixar for his home district.
The one who made Toronto or Vancouver Hollywood North.
There is also the nationalist impulse to keep his native culture from being overwealmed by cheap foreign imports.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592352</id>
	<title>Re:Enlighten about technology?</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1259848980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are the Italians that desperate to stop the video of Berlusconi being thumped being available around the world?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the Italians that desperate to stop the video of Berlusconi being thumped being available around the world ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the Italians that desperate to stop the video of Berlusconi being thumped being available around the world?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812</id>
	<title>Not the point ...</title>
	<author>golodh</author>
	<datestamp>1259840160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Knowing a thing or two about Italy and its love for byzantine legal constructs, I fear that the effectiveness of such measures isn't their primary purpose. Their PR effect, however, is.
<p>
Italy has plenty of laws that would totally paralyze every aspect of public and private life, were they to be rigorously enforced. Such laws look terrific on paper but don't have any practical effect except in lawsuits where they can be (and are) routinely used to club people over the head with. Anyone who has ever driven a car in an Italian city South of Rome (Naples for example, or tried to cross the street in the same city at a pedestrian crossing that's showing a green light for pedestrians) knows all about the practical value of laws in Italy.
</p><p>
This little decision will satisfy officials who can now tout it as a bold step towards curbing piracy. This is important. Just remember that their prime minister, Berlusconi, owns a whole chain of content-creating enterprises. He can't afford to look "soft on piracy" and retain his credibility in business circles.
</p><p>
As one or two nerdish forum members may already have figured out, blocking a torrent site or two won't necessarily stop people from finding or downloading torrents. To put it mildly.
</p><p>
The only thing it *will* do is to slowly erode yet another form of legal freedom in Italy and afterwards in the rest of Europe.
</p><p>
That's all folks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowing a thing or two about Italy and its love for byzantine legal constructs , I fear that the effectiveness of such measures is n't their primary purpose .
Their PR effect , however , is .
Italy has plenty of laws that would totally paralyze every aspect of public and private life , were they to be rigorously enforced .
Such laws look terrific on paper but do n't have any practical effect except in lawsuits where they can be ( and are ) routinely used to club people over the head with .
Anyone who has ever driven a car in an Italian city South of Rome ( Naples for example , or tried to cross the street in the same city at a pedestrian crossing that 's showing a green light for pedestrians ) knows all about the practical value of laws in Italy .
This little decision will satisfy officials who can now tout it as a bold step towards curbing piracy .
This is important .
Just remember that their prime minister , Berlusconi , owns a whole chain of content-creating enterprises .
He ca n't afford to look " soft on piracy " and retain his credibility in business circles .
As one or two nerdish forum members may already have figured out , blocking a torrent site or two wo n't necessarily stop people from finding or downloading torrents .
To put it mildly .
The only thing it * will * do is to slowly erode yet another form of legal freedom in Italy and afterwards in the rest of Europe .
That 's all folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowing a thing or two about Italy and its love for byzantine legal constructs, I fear that the effectiveness of such measures isn't their primary purpose.
Their PR effect, however, is.
Italy has plenty of laws that would totally paralyze every aspect of public and private life, were they to be rigorously enforced.
Such laws look terrific on paper but don't have any practical effect except in lawsuits where they can be (and are) routinely used to club people over the head with.
Anyone who has ever driven a car in an Italian city South of Rome (Naples for example, or tried to cross the street in the same city at a pedestrian crossing that's showing a green light for pedestrians) knows all about the practical value of laws in Italy.
This little decision will satisfy officials who can now tout it as a bold step towards curbing piracy.
This is important.
Just remember that their prime minister, Berlusconi, owns a whole chain of content-creating enterprises.
He can't afford to look "soft on piracy" and retain his credibility in business circles.
As one or two nerdish forum members may already have figured out, blocking a torrent site or two won't necessarily stop people from finding or downloading torrents.
To put it mildly.
The only thing it *will* do is to slowly erode yet another form of legal freedom in Italy and afterwards in the rest of Europe.
That's all folks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592066</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright Holders Are Winning Control of Our Go</title>
	<author>Kijori</author>
	<datestamp>1259845020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since Lord Mandy went on holiday and "bumped into" into Mr Geffen - the recommendations of the digital communications report and the concerns of ISPs were completely ignored. It appears the "3-stikes" legislation is to go ahead after all.</p></div><p>I think you're absolutely right to be worried. I'm going to talk about the UK situation since that's what I know about, but the situation EU-wide is largely as you describe: governments are caving to copyright owners.</p><p>Before saying anything else, it's worth making clear that the "3 strikes" legislation <a href="http://www.digitalwrong.org/?p=31" title="digitalwrong.org">contains nothing to do with three strikes</a> [digitalwrong.org]. It is totally silent on the specifics of the chances that have to be given to internet users before they can be cut off and leaves the question entirely to a "code" that has not yet been written and so cannot be reviewed before the bill becomes law. You can read more about this at the link I gave above. The "new" bill pays lip-service to the Government's "commitment to human rights", and seems to be relying on this "code" to avoid the criticism of the EU. However, as the link above makes clear, it gives the Secretary of State a get-out clause to get past the code if he wants to, with little to no oversight or controls.</p><p>There's a lot of confusion, even on Slashdot, about the content of the bill. To break down the sections on Copyright infringement (taken from <a href="http://www.digitalwrong.org/?page\_id=6" title="digitalwrong.org">http://www.digitalwrong.org/?page\_id=6</a> [digitalwrong.org]), the new process in case of alleged infringement is:</p><ol><li>The rightsholder  for example a record company  determines that the user is infringing. <strong>The bill does not set out how this is to be done;</strong> the company is in effect free to determine guilt <strong>any way they see fit</strong>. As has been shown by the cases that have gone to court, this determination is often made on the back of <strong>weak or non-existant evidence</strong>.</li><li>The rightsholder sends a letter to your ISP</li><li>Your ISP sends you a warning letter. This will contain information of the time of the infringement and the IP address of the computer that committed it. It will also contain information on securing your network.</li><li>If the rights holder judges that infringement has continued after a period of time (not defined in the bill) they may require your ISP to throttle your connection, prevent you from accessing certain resources, or disconnect you completely.</li><li>If you believe this was done in error, you can appeal. This appeal would not go to a court, but to a First-Tier tribunal. This would be your first chance to deny the accusations, and could come after the punitive measures had been taken.</li></ol><p>This goes absolutely against the presumption of innocence that is such an important part of a modern democracy.</p><p>If this all sounds a bit worrying, there is some good news. The bill is entering its committee stage on the 6th of January, and this is the best chance to change it before it reaches the House of Commons, at which point its progress will be faster and more subject to the party whip. So please,  <a href="http://www.digitalwrong.org/?page\_id=28" title="digitalwrong.org">write to a Lord</a> [digitalwrong.org] and explain to them why the measure is bad, either morally or because - as has even been admitted by the impact assessment - network security means the wrong people will be punished, and what they can do to change it - i.e. go to the open committee session starting on the 6th and change the bill.</p><p>Things are advancing very quickly, and I appreciate that not everyone has time to read the 300+ pages of the bill, the debates, the notes and the impact assessment, so if anyone has any questions on their contents please ask and I will answer them. Otherwise, <strong>please</strong> write in before it's too late, and spread the word - either online or offline - about the travesty that is the Digital Economy Bill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Lord Mandy went on holiday and " bumped into " into Mr Geffen - the recommendations of the digital communications report and the concerns of ISPs were completely ignored .
It appears the " 3-stikes " legislation is to go ahead after all.I think you 're absolutely right to be worried .
I 'm going to talk about the UK situation since that 's what I know about , but the situation EU-wide is largely as you describe : governments are caving to copyright owners.Before saying anything else , it 's worth making clear that the " 3 strikes " legislation contains nothing to do with three strikes [ digitalwrong.org ] .
It is totally silent on the specifics of the chances that have to be given to internet users before they can be cut off and leaves the question entirely to a " code " that has not yet been written and so can not be reviewed before the bill becomes law .
You can read more about this at the link I gave above .
The " new " bill pays lip-service to the Government 's " commitment to human rights " , and seems to be relying on this " code " to avoid the criticism of the EU .
However , as the link above makes clear , it gives the Secretary of State a get-out clause to get past the code if he wants to , with little to no oversight or controls.There 's a lot of confusion , even on Slashdot , about the content of the bill .
To break down the sections on Copyright infringement ( taken from http : //www.digitalwrong.org/ ? page \ _id = 6 [ digitalwrong.org ] ) , the new process in case of alleged infringement is : The rightsholder for example a record company determines that the user is infringing .
The bill does not set out how this is to be done ; the company is in effect free to determine guilt any way they see fit .
As has been shown by the cases that have gone to court , this determination is often made on the back of weak or non-existant evidence.The rightsholder sends a letter to your ISPYour ISP sends you a warning letter .
This will contain information of the time of the infringement and the IP address of the computer that committed it .
It will also contain information on securing your network.If the rights holder judges that infringement has continued after a period of time ( not defined in the bill ) they may require your ISP to throttle your connection , prevent you from accessing certain resources , or disconnect you completely.If you believe this was done in error , you can appeal .
This appeal would not go to a court , but to a First-Tier tribunal .
This would be your first chance to deny the accusations , and could come after the punitive measures had been taken.This goes absolutely against the presumption of innocence that is such an important part of a modern democracy.If this all sounds a bit worrying , there is some good news .
The bill is entering its committee stage on the 6th of January , and this is the best chance to change it before it reaches the House of Commons , at which point its progress will be faster and more subject to the party whip .
So please , write to a Lord [ digitalwrong.org ] and explain to them why the measure is bad , either morally or because - as has even been admitted by the impact assessment - network security means the wrong people will be punished , and what they can do to change it - i.e .
go to the open committee session starting on the 6th and change the bill.Things are advancing very quickly , and I appreciate that not everyone has time to read the 300 + pages of the bill , the debates , the notes and the impact assessment , so if anyone has any questions on their contents please ask and I will answer them .
Otherwise , please write in before it 's too late , and spread the word - either online or offline - about the travesty that is the Digital Economy Bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Lord Mandy went on holiday and "bumped into" into Mr Geffen - the recommendations of the digital communications report and the concerns of ISPs were completely ignored.
It appears the "3-stikes" legislation is to go ahead after all.I think you're absolutely right to be worried.
I'm going to talk about the UK situation since that's what I know about, but the situation EU-wide is largely as you describe: governments are caving to copyright owners.Before saying anything else, it's worth making clear that the "3 strikes" legislation contains nothing to do with three strikes [digitalwrong.org].
It is totally silent on the specifics of the chances that have to be given to internet users before they can be cut off and leaves the question entirely to a "code" that has not yet been written and so cannot be reviewed before the bill becomes law.
You can read more about this at the link I gave above.
The "new" bill pays lip-service to the Government's "commitment to human rights", and seems to be relying on this "code" to avoid the criticism of the EU.
However, as the link above makes clear, it gives the Secretary of State a get-out clause to get past the code if he wants to, with little to no oversight or controls.There's a lot of confusion, even on Slashdot, about the content of the bill.
To break down the sections on Copyright infringement (taken from http://www.digitalwrong.org/?page\_id=6 [digitalwrong.org]), the new process in case of alleged infringement is:The rightsholder  for example a record company  determines that the user is infringing.
The bill does not set out how this is to be done; the company is in effect free to determine guilt any way they see fit.
As has been shown by the cases that have gone to court, this determination is often made on the back of weak or non-existant evidence.The rightsholder sends a letter to your ISPYour ISP sends you a warning letter.
This will contain information of the time of the infringement and the IP address of the computer that committed it.
It will also contain information on securing your network.If the rights holder judges that infringement has continued after a period of time (not defined in the bill) they may require your ISP to throttle your connection, prevent you from accessing certain resources, or disconnect you completely.If you believe this was done in error, you can appeal.
This appeal would not go to a court, but to a First-Tier tribunal.
This would be your first chance to deny the accusations, and could come after the punitive measures had been taken.This goes absolutely against the presumption of innocence that is such an important part of a modern democracy.If this all sounds a bit worrying, there is some good news.
The bill is entering its committee stage on the 6th of January, and this is the best chance to change it before it reaches the House of Commons, at which point its progress will be faster and more subject to the party whip.
So please,  write to a Lord [digitalwrong.org] and explain to them why the measure is bad, either morally or because - as has even been admitted by the impact assessment - network security means the wrong people will be punished, and what they can do to change it - i.e.
go to the open committee session starting on the 6th and change the bill.Things are advancing very quickly, and I appreciate that not everyone has time to read the 300+ pages of the bill, the debates, the notes and the impact assessment, so if anyone has any questions on their contents please ask and I will answer them.
Otherwise, please write in before it's too late, and spread the word - either online or offline - about the travesty that is the Digital Economy Bill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592426</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259849880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Facilitating a crime has, to my knowledge, never been legal in any Western country. That is precisely what sites like The Pirate Bay do for users in certain countries."</p><p>One could argue that TPB does facilitate copyright infringement.  However, AFAIK, copyright infringement is a civil, not a criminal, offense in most western countries.</p><p>The "content" creators would like for the behavior to be criminalized, so as to decrease the cost of enforcing their copyrights by transferring this responsibility to the state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Facilitating a crime has , to my knowledge , never been legal in any Western country .
That is precisely what sites like The Pirate Bay do for users in certain countries .
" One could argue that TPB does facilitate copyright infringement .
However , AFAIK , copyright infringement is a civil , not a criminal , offense in most western countries.The " content " creators would like for the behavior to be criminalized , so as to decrease the cost of enforcing their copyrights by transferring this responsibility to the state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Facilitating a crime has, to my knowledge, never been legal in any Western country.
That is precisely what sites like The Pirate Bay do for users in certain countries.
"One could argue that TPB does facilitate copyright infringement.
However, AFAIK, copyright infringement is a civil, not a criminal, offense in most western countries.The "content" creators would like for the behavior to be criminalized, so as to decrease the cost of enforcing their copyrights by transferring this responsibility to the state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591806</id>
	<title>Block these</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone tell the italian government to block gmail.com and hotmail.com? I have seen some bittorrent files on those domains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone tell the italian government to block gmail.com and hotmail.com ?
I have seen some bittorrent files on those domains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone tell the italian government to block gmail.com and hotmail.com?
I have seen some bittorrent files on those domains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30598368</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259872620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but it <b>is</b> unfair to expect to be able to control how people refer to material under copyright that has been published for public consumption.  The problem is that a lot of these new laws blur that line, when there are already perfectly good laws to do with facilitating a crime that can be used in prosecution.  The problem is that the copyright holders in question aren't willing to push forward the case that stands the test of a jury to become enshrined in case law -- they'd rather have a custom law that panders to their current situation and carries zero risk to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but it is unfair to expect to be able to control how people refer to material under copyright that has been published for public consumption .
The problem is that a lot of these new laws blur that line , when there are already perfectly good laws to do with facilitating a crime that can be used in prosecution .
The problem is that the copyright holders in question are n't willing to push forward the case that stands the test of a jury to become enshrined in case law -- they 'd rather have a custom law that panders to their current situation and carries zero risk to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but it is unfair to expect to be able to control how people refer to material under copyright that has been published for public consumption.
The problem is that a lot of these new laws blur that line, when there are already perfectly good laws to do with facilitating a crime that can be used in prosecution.
The problem is that the copyright holders in question aren't willing to push forward the case that stands the test of a jury to become enshrined in case law -- they'd rather have a custom law that panders to their current situation and carries zero risk to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592318</id>
	<title>Re:Not the point ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259848380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The president is also the head of many large corporations? That itself should be bolded in 72-point font, to truly show the kind of corruption in Italy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The president is also the head of many large corporations ?
That itself should be bolded in 72-point font , to truly show the kind of corruption in Italy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The president is also the head of many large corporations?
That itself should be bolded in 72-point font, to truly show the kind of corruption in Italy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592622</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259851740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what sites like The Pirate Bay do is the equivalent of the phone book or the Yellow Pages.  Furthermore, ordinary people use the same service all the time for non-criminal activities.  Are you suggesting that the phone company should be charged with facilitating a crime every time they provide a phone number that is subsequently used in a crime?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what sites like The Pirate Bay do is the equivalent of the phone book or the Yellow Pages .
Furthermore , ordinary people use the same service all the time for non-criminal activities .
Are you suggesting that the phone company should be charged with facilitating a crime every time they provide a phone number that is subsequently used in a crime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what sites like The Pirate Bay do is the equivalent of the phone book or the Yellow Pages.
Furthermore, ordinary people use the same service all the time for non-criminal activities.
Are you suggesting that the phone company should be charged with facilitating a crime every time they provide a phone number that is subsequently used in a crime?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594220</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>grow up retard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>grow up retard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>grow up retard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591802</id>
	<title>"Supreme courts"</title>
	<author>spammeister</author>
	<datestamp>1259839980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Arn't they run by judges who are also lawyers? It would be neat if normal people AKA jurists were in charge but I don't think that is/ever will be the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ar n't they run by judges who are also lawyers ?
It would be neat if normal people AKA jurists were in charge but I do n't think that is/ever will be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arn't they run by judges who are also lawyers?
It would be neat if normal people AKA jurists were in charge but I don't think that is/ever will be the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591824</id>
	<title>Italians and technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" It seems someone should enlighten the overwhelming majority of Italians about anything more complex than watching the Big Brother on TV."</p><p>fixed that for ya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It seems someone should enlighten the overwhelming majority of Italians about anything more complex than watching the Big Brother on TV .
" fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" It seems someone should enlighten the overwhelming majority of Italians about anything more complex than watching the Big Brother on TV.
"fixed that for ya.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30597438</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259869140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see things the way you do.  I know full well that the companies represented by the RIAA do not pay for their material in a fair manner.  They are exploiting their employees, which is on par with human trafficking in my mind.  So who are the bad guys here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see things the way you do .
I know full well that the companies represented by the RIAA do not pay for their material in a fair manner .
They are exploiting their employees , which is on par with human trafficking in my mind .
So who are the bad guys here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see things the way you do.
I know full well that the companies represented by the RIAA do not pay for their material in a fair manner.
They are exploiting their employees, which is on par with human trafficking in my mind.
So who are the bad guys here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592032</id>
	<title>I'm enlightened:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259844480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you, Sir, must be a RIAA paid shill</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you , Sir , must be a RIAA paid shill</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you, Sir, must be a RIAA paid shill</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591796</id>
	<title>Cosa Nostra</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259839800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can't make any money off the crime of free sharing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't make any money off the crime of free sharing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't make any money off the crime of free sharing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592130</id>
	<title>Re:Not the point ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259845860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only thing it *will* do is to slowly erode yet another form of legal freedom</i></p><p>Or it will simply erode even more respect for the law. I certainly don't regard IP laws as legitimate any more; perhaps we're going to get a more Italian attitude towards the law spread around.</p><p>That said one is hardly surprised by the Italian legal system bowing to the MAFIAA...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing it * will * do is to slowly erode yet another form of legal freedomOr it will simply erode even more respect for the law .
I certainly do n't regard IP laws as legitimate any more ; perhaps we 're going to get a more Italian attitude towards the law spread around.That said one is hardly surprised by the Italian legal system bowing to the MAFIAA.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing it *will* do is to slowly erode yet another form of legal freedomOr it will simply erode even more respect for the law.
I certainly don't regard IP laws as legitimate any more; perhaps we're going to get a more Italian attitude towards the law spread around.That said one is hardly surprised by the Italian legal system bowing to the MAFIAA...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30602482</id>
	<title>Re:"Supreme courts"</title>
	<author>haruharaharu</author>
	<datestamp>1259856960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Judgement by "normal" people is something that was feared a lot in writing the Italian Consitution, because we had seen how it worked with fascism. The principle that people support is enough to justify everything is the essence of fascism and one of the scary mantras of Mr. Berlusconi.</p></div><p>Yeah, that's working out so well for amanda knox, isn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Judgement by " normal " people is something that was feared a lot in writing the Italian Consitution , because we had seen how it worked with fascism .
The principle that people support is enough to justify everything is the essence of fascism and one of the scary mantras of Mr. Berlusconi.Yeah , that 's working out so well for amanda knox , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judgement by "normal" people is something that was feared a lot in writing the Italian Consitution, because we had seen how it worked with fascism.
The principle that people support is enough to justify everything is the essence of fascism and one of the scary mantras of Mr. Berlusconi.Yeah, that's working out so well for amanda knox, isn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594742</id>
	<title>Re:Not the point ...</title>
	<author>Ash Vince</author>
	<datestamp>1259860260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only thing it *will* do is to slowly erode yet another form of legal freedom in Italy and afterwards in the rest of Europe.</p></div><p>Do we really need to have the legal freedom to download any digital work without paying the creator of said work? I know whenever I post this I get moderated as a troll but it is a legitimate question. Should we really do away with all IP laws and let people copy and distribute as they see fit?</p><p>Unfortunately we do all need money to live in this world so what is the big problem with trying to make it via selling digital works that can be duplicated endlessly. You still had to put time and effort into creating the original after all.</p><p>Also, lets not forget that many torrent sites are filled with adverts. This must generate them some revenue and they are not paying any of it to the people who created the works they are distributing. I know that many sites claim they do not turn a profit and the adverts only pay for hardware and bandwidth costs, but we only have their word for it.</p><p>While I have great love for the large media conglomerates that hold the copyright on much of what is illegally distributed, I also do not exactly like the idea of starting a business based on taking something else that you had no part in creating, and profiting from it.</p><p>I used to use bittorrent and gnutella a lot in my youth. One of my friends who was in a band that had a record deal refused to give me an early copy of their album as he did not want it posted to the internet and hence cost him money. It might have cost the record company more, but he needed every penny he got from his records. Unfortunately, trying to harm the record companies via copyright infringement also hurts artists.</p><p>I am also not convinced that even if we bankrupted all the current record companies that more of the same ilk would not just grow up to replace them. If a company goes bankrupt, the liquidators end up with the property (including intellectual), and they would then just sell it all of to the highest bidder.</p><p>We have to find a way of fighting the current state of affairs without shooting ourselves in the foot in the process by driving all people who make any work that can be digitised into a different career.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing it * will * do is to slowly erode yet another form of legal freedom in Italy and afterwards in the rest of Europe.Do we really need to have the legal freedom to download any digital work without paying the creator of said work ?
I know whenever I post this I get moderated as a troll but it is a legitimate question .
Should we really do away with all IP laws and let people copy and distribute as they see fit ? Unfortunately we do all need money to live in this world so what is the big problem with trying to make it via selling digital works that can be duplicated endlessly .
You still had to put time and effort into creating the original after all.Also , lets not forget that many torrent sites are filled with adverts .
This must generate them some revenue and they are not paying any of it to the people who created the works they are distributing .
I know that many sites claim they do not turn a profit and the adverts only pay for hardware and bandwidth costs , but we only have their word for it.While I have great love for the large media conglomerates that hold the copyright on much of what is illegally distributed , I also do not exactly like the idea of starting a business based on taking something else that you had no part in creating , and profiting from it.I used to use bittorrent and gnutella a lot in my youth .
One of my friends who was in a band that had a record deal refused to give me an early copy of their album as he did not want it posted to the internet and hence cost him money .
It might have cost the record company more , but he needed every penny he got from his records .
Unfortunately , trying to harm the record companies via copyright infringement also hurts artists.I am also not convinced that even if we bankrupted all the current record companies that more of the same ilk would not just grow up to replace them .
If a company goes bankrupt , the liquidators end up with the property ( including intellectual ) , and they would then just sell it all of to the highest bidder.We have to find a way of fighting the current state of affairs without shooting ourselves in the foot in the process by driving all people who make any work that can be digitised into a different career .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing it *will* do is to slowly erode yet another form of legal freedom in Italy and afterwards in the rest of Europe.Do we really need to have the legal freedom to download any digital work without paying the creator of said work?
I know whenever I post this I get moderated as a troll but it is a legitimate question.
Should we really do away with all IP laws and let people copy and distribute as they see fit?Unfortunately we do all need money to live in this world so what is the big problem with trying to make it via selling digital works that can be duplicated endlessly.
You still had to put time and effort into creating the original after all.Also, lets not forget that many torrent sites are filled with adverts.
This must generate them some revenue and they are not paying any of it to the people who created the works they are distributing.
I know that many sites claim they do not turn a profit and the adverts only pay for hardware and bandwidth costs, but we only have their word for it.While I have great love for the large media conglomerates that hold the copyright on much of what is illegally distributed, I also do not exactly like the idea of starting a business based on taking something else that you had no part in creating, and profiting from it.I used to use bittorrent and gnutella a lot in my youth.
One of my friends who was in a band that had a record deal refused to give me an early copy of their album as he did not want it posted to the internet and hence cost him money.
It might have cost the record company more, but he needed every penny he got from his records.
Unfortunately, trying to harm the record companies via copyright infringement also hurts artists.I am also not convinced that even if we bankrupted all the current record companies that more of the same ilk would not just grow up to replace them.
If a company goes bankrupt, the liquidators end up with the property (including intellectual), and they would then just sell it all of to the highest bidder.We have to find a way of fighting the current state of affairs without shooting ourselves in the foot in the process by driving all people who make any work that can be digitised into a different career.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592656</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259851920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exxon sells gasoline to any arsonist that wants it, they're still in business...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exxon sells gasoline to any arsonist that wants it , they 're still in business.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exxon sells gasoline to any arsonist that wants it, they're still in business...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592422</id>
	<title>Re:MOD PARENT UP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259849820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a difference between speaking up for whats right and being troll/flame bait. In your case you start out strong with good examples of how things could be better then you dive in stupidity. First all countries are not the same so don't assume your statements are valid anywhere but your home.</p><p>Second my thoughts on piracy are pretty much the same as most folks. Its wrong but if the game/software companies made quality items with a limited preview maybe it would stop those who do it. Instead they charge stupid-ass prices for crap quite often. So piracy is wrong but so is the model we use for everything.</p><p>Any other company that made this crappy for a product for this price would be done. I wouldn't pay 100K for a car that lasted 1year, I wouldn't buy spoiled food at a "quick sale discount" but we allow this kind of behavior to go on in the computer world. Fix the problem, stop the whining and he said/she said not my fault crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference between speaking up for whats right and being troll/flame bait .
In your case you start out strong with good examples of how things could be better then you dive in stupidity .
First all countries are not the same so do n't assume your statements are valid anywhere but your home.Second my thoughts on piracy are pretty much the same as most folks .
Its wrong but if the game/software companies made quality items with a limited preview maybe it would stop those who do it .
Instead they charge stupid-ass prices for crap quite often .
So piracy is wrong but so is the model we use for everything.Any other company that made this crappy for a product for this price would be done .
I would n't pay 100K for a car that lasted 1year , I would n't buy spoiled food at a " quick sale discount " but we allow this kind of behavior to go on in the computer world .
Fix the problem , stop the whining and he said/she said not my fault crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference between speaking up for whats right and being troll/flame bait.
In your case you start out strong with good examples of how things could be better then you dive in stupidity.
First all countries are not the same so don't assume your statements are valid anywhere but your home.Second my thoughts on piracy are pretty much the same as most folks.
Its wrong but if the game/software companies made quality items with a limited preview maybe it would stop those who do it.
Instead they charge stupid-ass prices for crap quite often.
So piracy is wrong but so is the model we use for everything.Any other company that made this crappy for a product for this price would be done.
I wouldn't pay 100K for a car that lasted 1year, I wouldn't buy spoiled food at a "quick sale discount" but we allow this kind of behavior to go on in the computer world.
Fix the problem, stop the whining and he said/she said not my fault crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592198</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259846880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent is absolutely correct. Please mod it up, and go ahead and mod me flaimbait or troll I know it's an unpopular position on here, but than again most people that stand up for fairness get shot at.</p><p>And don't tell me well the lawsuits the MPAFIAA and RIAFFIA aren't fair because I agree they are extreme, but than again so is the brazen attitude that piracy is OK.  It's like Neocons vs Anarchists<br>both are extremes and both are stupid.</p><p>First off people on here need to stop hiding behind the veil of "Oh they are trying to restrict information" and "The don't host the files so how are they at fault!? defense.  That is not working any more and it never did.</p><p>When the internet came about it was like the wild west.  No rules or regulations an open space.  But without law things got out of hand quick looting, murder, gambling, prostitution etc.  The laws of the internet are now being written in countries and when it comes down to data links to replicas of copy-written material there weren't any rules set forth to protect the works or understanding of what was really going on to try those who were "just hosting links yo".</p><p>Yes isohunt, the piratebay, and others are indeed accessories to piracy. Which is against the law.</p><p>If you give a map of the building to a thief knowing full well what he intends to take and he robs a bank yeah you are liable.<br>"But I didn't rob it I was just showing him paper and ink?!" doesn't work.</p><p>And people need to learn fast that the free ride days are going to come to an end.  If you want to watch a movie, download a song, or use a piece of commercial software buy it.  Stop being so damn cheap, and stop saying "well I want to preview what I see before I buy it" is a huge load of crap.</p><p>There are trailers/teasers for movies as well as selected scenes released for free for you to preview them.</p><p>There are plenty of free streaming samples of songs, on amazon and itunes, and lala, and last.fm, and pandaora, and XM/Sirius , and traditional radio, and internet radio</p><p>There are typically trial versions of most software applications</p><p>So really the preview attitude is really a poor defense.</p><p>I can't go into a restaurant and preview an entire meal and then decide if I want to pay for it.   You order you consume you pay for it.<br>And don't say "well I can send it back.. at the theaters I can't send back a movie!"... actually you can.... within 30 minutes of a film's start time you can tell the box office that you didn't like it and they will give you back your money or venue credit. Got another excuse captain cheapo?</p><p>But you haven't had to pay with this loop hole before?!...waaaaah.... and now you don't wanna?....waaaaah</p><p>Tough shit suck it up and pay what you owe.</p><p>If you don't want to pay THEN don't watch/download/use it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is absolutely correct .
Please mod it up , and go ahead and mod me flaimbait or troll I know it 's an unpopular position on here , but than again most people that stand up for fairness get shot at.And do n't tell me well the lawsuits the MPAFIAA and RIAFFIA are n't fair because I agree they are extreme , but than again so is the brazen attitude that piracy is OK. It 's like Neocons vs Anarchistsboth are extremes and both are stupid.First off people on here need to stop hiding behind the veil of " Oh they are trying to restrict information " and " The do n't host the files so how are they at fault ! ?
defense. That is not working any more and it never did.When the internet came about it was like the wild west .
No rules or regulations an open space .
But without law things got out of hand quick looting , murder , gambling , prostitution etc .
The laws of the internet are now being written in countries and when it comes down to data links to replicas of copy-written material there were n't any rules set forth to protect the works or understanding of what was really going on to try those who were " just hosting links yo " .Yes isohunt , the piratebay , and others are indeed accessories to piracy .
Which is against the law.If you give a map of the building to a thief knowing full well what he intends to take and he robs a bank yeah you are liable .
" But I did n't rob it I was just showing him paper and ink ? !
" does n't work.And people need to learn fast that the free ride days are going to come to an end .
If you want to watch a movie , download a song , or use a piece of commercial software buy it .
Stop being so damn cheap , and stop saying " well I want to preview what I see before I buy it " is a huge load of crap.There are trailers/teasers for movies as well as selected scenes released for free for you to preview them.There are plenty of free streaming samples of songs , on amazon and itunes , and lala , and last.fm , and pandaora , and XM/Sirius , and traditional radio , and internet radioThere are typically trial versions of most software applicationsSo really the preview attitude is really a poor defense.I ca n't go into a restaurant and preview an entire meal and then decide if I want to pay for it .
You order you consume you pay for it.And do n't say " well I can send it back.. at the theaters I ca n't send back a movie ! " .. .
actually you can.... within 30 minutes of a film 's start time you can tell the box office that you did n't like it and they will give you back your money or venue credit .
Got another excuse captain cheapo ? But you have n't had to pay with this loop hole before ? ! ...waaaaah... .
and now you do n't wan na ? ....waaaaahTough shit suck it up and pay what you owe.If you do n't want to pay THEN do n't watch/download/use it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is absolutely correct.
Please mod it up, and go ahead and mod me flaimbait or troll I know it's an unpopular position on here, but than again most people that stand up for fairness get shot at.And don't tell me well the lawsuits the MPAFIAA and RIAFFIA aren't fair because I agree they are extreme, but than again so is the brazen attitude that piracy is OK.  It's like Neocons vs Anarchistsboth are extremes and both are stupid.First off people on here need to stop hiding behind the veil of "Oh they are trying to restrict information" and "The don't host the files so how are they at fault!?
defense.  That is not working any more and it never did.When the internet came about it was like the wild west.
No rules or regulations an open space.
But without law things got out of hand quick looting, murder, gambling, prostitution etc.
The laws of the internet are now being written in countries and when it comes down to data links to replicas of copy-written material there weren't any rules set forth to protect the works or understanding of what was really going on to try those who were "just hosting links yo".Yes isohunt, the piratebay, and others are indeed accessories to piracy.
Which is against the law.If you give a map of the building to a thief knowing full well what he intends to take and he robs a bank yeah you are liable.
"But I didn't rob it I was just showing him paper and ink?!
" doesn't work.And people need to learn fast that the free ride days are going to come to an end.
If you want to watch a movie, download a song, or use a piece of commercial software buy it.
Stop being so damn cheap, and stop saying "well I want to preview what I see before I buy it" is a huge load of crap.There are trailers/teasers for movies as well as selected scenes released for free for you to preview them.There are plenty of free streaming samples of songs, on amazon and itunes, and lala, and last.fm, and pandaora, and XM/Sirius , and traditional radio, and internet radioThere are typically trial versions of most software applicationsSo really the preview attitude is really a poor defense.I can't go into a restaurant and preview an entire meal and then decide if I want to pay for it.
You order you consume you pay for it.And don't say "well I can send it back.. at the theaters I can't send back a movie!"...
actually you can.... within 30 minutes of a film's start time you can tell the box office that you didn't like it and they will give you back your money or venue credit.
Got another excuse captain cheapo?But you haven't had to pay with this loop hole before?!...waaaaah....
and now you don't wanna?....waaaaahTough shit suck it up and pay what you owe.If you don't want to pay THEN don't watch/download/use it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592076</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259845200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>hang on a second. a few weeks ago slashdot ran a story about how MPAA memebers enjoyed a record box office year, so how are they failing and making record sales at the same time?</htmltext>
<tokenext>hang on a second .
a few weeks ago slashdot ran a story about how MPAA memebers enjoyed a record box office year , so how are they failing and making record sales at the same time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hang on a second.
a few weeks ago slashdot ran a story about how MPAA memebers enjoyed a record box office year, so how are they failing and making record sales at the same time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30599230</id>
	<title>Re:Not the point ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259833200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Any user using OpenDNS or his own DNS (or GDNS today) wouldn't be affected.</p></div></blockquote><p>Keep Tor around: italian ISPs are required to drop routes to certain IP addresses as well. And it works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any user using OpenDNS or his own DNS ( or GDNS today ) would n't be affected.Keep Tor around : italian ISPs are required to drop routes to certain IP addresses as well .
And it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any user using OpenDNS or his own DNS (or GDNS today) wouldn't be affected.Keep Tor around: italian ISPs are required to drop routes to certain IP addresses as well.
And it works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770</id>
	<title>Enlighten about technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259839140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a technological matter. If a country wants to censor a communication medium, it can certainly do so. It will never be 100 percent effective, but censorship does restrict availability of information. We should not fall back to a "we can get around it" position. While that is true, most people will not get around it and controlling their access to information is an undue power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a technological matter .
If a country wants to censor a communication medium , it can certainly do so .
It will never be 100 percent effective , but censorship does restrict availability of information .
We should not fall back to a " we can get around it " position .
While that is true , most people will not get around it and controlling their access to information is an undue power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a technological matter.
If a country wants to censor a communication medium, it can certainly do so.
It will never be 100 percent effective, but censorship does restrict availability of information.
We should not fall back to a "we can get around it" position.
While that is true, most people will not get around it and controlling their access to information is an undue power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30595050</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright Holders Are Winning Control of Our Go</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1259861220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ACTA negotiations with the US? With everything under the covers, all sides have plausible deniability about who is pushing for the most draconian copyright measures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ACTA negotiations with the US ?
With everything under the covers , all sides have plausible deniability about who is pushing for the most draconian copyright measures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ACTA negotiations with the US?
With everything under the covers, all sides have plausible deniability about who is pushing for the most draconian copyright measures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592328</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright Holders Are Winning Control of Our Go</title>
	<author>kenshin33</author>
	<datestamp>1259848560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That law in France was declared unconstitutional by there "Conseil constitutionnel" (constitutional council)
<a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/10/frances-three-strike.html" title="boingboing.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/10/frances-three-strike.html</a> [boingboing.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>That law in France was declared unconstitutional by there " Conseil constitutionnel " ( constitutional council ) http : //www.boingboing.net/2009/06/10/frances-three-strike.html [ boingboing.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That law in France was declared unconstitutional by there "Conseil constitutionnel" (constitutional council)
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/10/frances-three-strike.html [boingboing.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30593682</id>
	<title>Re:"Supreme courts"</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1259856780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Arn't they run by judges who are also lawyers? It would be neat if normal people AKA jurists were in charge but I don't think that is/ever will be the case.</i> </p><p>When the geek faces the "normal people," the judge and jury in an American court, how often does he come out a winner?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ar n't they run by judges who are also lawyers ?
It would be neat if normal people AKA jurists were in charge but I do n't think that is/ever will be the case .
When the geek faces the " normal people , " the judge and jury in an American court , how often does he come out a winner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arn't they run by judges who are also lawyers?
It would be neat if normal people AKA jurists were in charge but I don't think that is/ever will be the case.
When the geek faces the "normal people," the judge and jury in an American court, how often does he come out a winner?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592296</id>
	<title>Re:"Supreme courts"</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1259848200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judges can think rationally and apply the letter of the law. Jurists, without that to keep them in check, can say "that's immoral, 5 year prison sentence" even if it's not technically illegal. A precise legal framework is needed because you can conform to one, but you can't conform to someone's morality which you don't even know of until the trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judges can think rationally and apply the letter of the law .
Jurists , without that to keep them in check , can say " that 's immoral , 5 year prison sentence " even if it 's not technically illegal .
A precise legal framework is needed because you can conform to one , but you ca n't conform to someone 's morality which you do n't even know of until the trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judges can think rationally and apply the letter of the law.
Jurists, without that to keep them in check, can say "that's immoral, 5 year prison sentence" even if it's not technically illegal.
A precise legal framework is needed because you can conform to one, but you can't conform to someone's morality which you don't even know of until the trial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30682632</id>
	<title>Do we need this sort of freedom?</title>
	<author>golodh</author>
	<datestamp>1231345080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do we really need to have the legal freedom to download any digital work without paying the creator of said work? I know whenever I post this I get moderated as a troll but it is a legitimate question. Should we really do away with all IP laws and let people copy and distribute as they see fit?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you pose two very different questions here, which I agree are entirely reasonable questions to ask:
</p><p>(1) should we have the freedom to commit copyright infringement?
</p><p>(2) Should we abolish copyright altogether?.
</p><p>
I believe the answer to question (1) is "Yes" and to question (2) "No".
</p><p>
Here's why.
</p><p>
Under current law, copyright infringement is a civil (not a criminal !) matter, and moreover one that only becomes actionable after the infringement takes place. When I drive my car I have the physical freedom to enter one-way streets from the wrong side, to drive on the pavement or in pedestrian zones, or even to drive on the wrong side of the road. But if I do there will likely be trouble.
</p><p>
To me that's the essence of freedom. The system is designed for people with common sense, but it still *does* allow me to break the rules in an emergency or for what I consider sufficient reason. I know I may face a fine (or the loss of my drivers license) if I do, but it's still my decision to make, not someone else's. What's proposed now is to shackle data-transmission and computer so that they can no longer even commit a copyright infringement. That's equivalent to creating cars that will automatically override drivers whenever they attempt to break a rule.
</p><p>
I can, to a certain extent, agree with monitoring data-transmissions by the FBI and NSA when it's about spotting potential terrorists. It's probably the worst single effect that terrorists have had, and in a sense they have won. The Western world is under a lot more surveillance today than it was 20 years ago. Or when the Cold War was on. I hate that, but I can't change it.
</p><p>
What I find totally unpalatable is to see the same intrusive powers that were granted to the guardians of state security to protect us from attacks under the current (extreme) conditions re-purposed to protect the financial interests of the Mickey Mouse industry. I simply do not believe that is worth it.
</p><p>
So yes. I think we should at least have have the \_technical\_ ability to infringe any copyrights we want for whatever reason we can think of. But of course that doesn't mean we should have immunity from legal action and being sued for damages if we do.
</p><p>
That brings me to question (2). By and large I believe that copyright law serves a purpose and should be upheld. Even if copyright laws are routinely exploited to their maximum extent (and even irresponsibly extended and abused) by all and sundry to protect all sorts of financial interests or business models that include and often supersede the effect that copyright laws were designed to have.
</p><p>
The RIAA for example doesn't seem to need any new powers to serve as a strong deterrent. Existing rules (and the existing standard of proof in court !) by and large seem adequate. Of course it's still possible for the system to grossly misfire (see e.g. the idiotic verdict plus damages in the Jammie Thomas case). Besides I personally think that "damages" awarded should be in reasonable proportion to the value of the infringement (in cases of people committing copyright infringement for private use and not for commercial gain) plus the cost of detection and prosecution plus a reasonable deterrent (say 1\% of someone's annual income with a minimum of 250$).
</p><p>
I'm more comfortable with the burden of detection and prosecution being placed on the copyright holders and not the State. I know it's far from ideal, but I think it's better than alternatives such as criminalizing copyright infringement. We need the Police for far more important things to oblige them to go out and detect and prosecute 15$ copyright infringement offenses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we really need to have the legal freedom to download any digital work without paying the creator of said work ?
I know whenever I post this I get moderated as a troll but it is a legitimate question .
Should we really do away with all IP laws and let people copy and distribute as they see fit ?
Well ... you pose two very different questions here , which I agree are entirely reasonable questions to ask : ( 1 ) should we have the freedom to commit copyright infringement ?
( 2 ) Should we abolish copyright altogether ? .
I believe the answer to question ( 1 ) is " Yes " and to question ( 2 ) " No " .
Here 's why .
Under current law , copyright infringement is a civil ( not a criminal !
) matter , and moreover one that only becomes actionable after the infringement takes place .
When I drive my car I have the physical freedom to enter one-way streets from the wrong side , to drive on the pavement or in pedestrian zones , or even to drive on the wrong side of the road .
But if I do there will likely be trouble .
To me that 's the essence of freedom .
The system is designed for people with common sense , but it still * does * allow me to break the rules in an emergency or for what I consider sufficient reason .
I know I may face a fine ( or the loss of my drivers license ) if I do , but it 's still my decision to make , not someone else 's .
What 's proposed now is to shackle data-transmission and computer so that they can no longer even commit a copyright infringement .
That 's equivalent to creating cars that will automatically override drivers whenever they attempt to break a rule .
I can , to a certain extent , agree with monitoring data-transmissions by the FBI and NSA when it 's about spotting potential terrorists .
It 's probably the worst single effect that terrorists have had , and in a sense they have won .
The Western world is under a lot more surveillance today than it was 20 years ago .
Or when the Cold War was on .
I hate that , but I ca n't change it .
What I find totally unpalatable is to see the same intrusive powers that were granted to the guardians of state security to protect us from attacks under the current ( extreme ) conditions re-purposed to protect the financial interests of the Mickey Mouse industry .
I simply do not believe that is worth it .
So yes .
I think we should at least have have the \ _technical \ _ ability to infringe any copyrights we want for whatever reason we can think of .
But of course that does n't mean we should have immunity from legal action and being sued for damages if we do .
That brings me to question ( 2 ) .
By and large I believe that copyright law serves a purpose and should be upheld .
Even if copyright laws are routinely exploited to their maximum extent ( and even irresponsibly extended and abused ) by all and sundry to protect all sorts of financial interests or business models that include and often supersede the effect that copyright laws were designed to have .
The RIAA for example does n't seem to need any new powers to serve as a strong deterrent .
Existing rules ( and the existing standard of proof in court !
) by and large seem adequate .
Of course it 's still possible for the system to grossly misfire ( see e.g .
the idiotic verdict plus damages in the Jammie Thomas case ) .
Besides I personally think that " damages " awarded should be in reasonable proportion to the value of the infringement ( in cases of people committing copyright infringement for private use and not for commercial gain ) plus the cost of detection and prosecution plus a reasonable deterrent ( say 1 \ % of someone 's annual income with a minimum of 250 $ ) .
I 'm more comfortable with the burden of detection and prosecution being placed on the copyright holders and not the State .
I know it 's far from ideal , but I think it 's better than alternatives such as criminalizing copyright infringement .
We need the Police for far more important things to oblige them to go out and detect and prosecute 15 $ copyright infringement offenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we really need to have the legal freedom to download any digital work without paying the creator of said work?
I know whenever I post this I get moderated as a troll but it is a legitimate question.
Should we really do away with all IP laws and let people copy and distribute as they see fit?
Well ... you pose two very different questions here, which I agree are entirely reasonable questions to ask:
(1) should we have the freedom to commit copyright infringement?
(2) Should we abolish copyright altogether?.
I believe the answer to question (1) is "Yes" and to question (2) "No".
Here's why.
Under current law, copyright infringement is a civil (not a criminal !
) matter, and moreover one that only becomes actionable after the infringement takes place.
When I drive my car I have the physical freedom to enter one-way streets from the wrong side, to drive on the pavement or in pedestrian zones, or even to drive on the wrong side of the road.
But if I do there will likely be trouble.
To me that's the essence of freedom.
The system is designed for people with common sense, but it still *does* allow me to break the rules in an emergency or for what I consider sufficient reason.
I know I may face a fine (or the loss of my drivers license) if I do, but it's still my decision to make, not someone else's.
What's proposed now is to shackle data-transmission and computer so that they can no longer even commit a copyright infringement.
That's equivalent to creating cars that will automatically override drivers whenever they attempt to break a rule.
I can, to a certain extent, agree with monitoring data-transmissions by the FBI and NSA when it's about spotting potential terrorists.
It's probably the worst single effect that terrorists have had, and in a sense they have won.
The Western world is under a lot more surveillance today than it was 20 years ago.
Or when the Cold War was on.
I hate that, but I can't change it.
What I find totally unpalatable is to see the same intrusive powers that were granted to the guardians of state security to protect us from attacks under the current (extreme) conditions re-purposed to protect the financial interests of the Mickey Mouse industry.
I simply do not believe that is worth it.
So yes.
I think we should at least have have the \_technical\_ ability to infringe any copyrights we want for whatever reason we can think of.
But of course that doesn't mean we should have immunity from legal action and being sued for damages if we do.
That brings me to question (2).
By and large I believe that copyright law serves a purpose and should be upheld.
Even if copyright laws are routinely exploited to their maximum extent (and even irresponsibly extended and abused) by all and sundry to protect all sorts of financial interests or business models that include and often supersede the effect that copyright laws were designed to have.
The RIAA for example doesn't seem to need any new powers to serve as a strong deterrent.
Existing rules (and the existing standard of proof in court !
) by and large seem adequate.
Of course it's still possible for the system to grossly misfire (see e.g.
the idiotic verdict plus damages in the Jammie Thomas case).
Besides I personally think that "damages" awarded should be in reasonable proportion to the value of the infringement (in cases of people committing copyright infringement for private use and not for commercial gain) plus the cost of detection and prosecution plus a reasonable deterrent (say 1\% of someone's annual income with a minimum of 250$).
I'm more comfortable with the burden of detection and prosecution being placed on the copyright holders and not the State.
I know it's far from ideal, but I think it's better than alternatives such as criminalizing copyright infringement.
We need the Police for far more important things to oblige them to go out and detect and prosecute 15$ copyright infringement offenses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592384</id>
	<title>Re:Not the point ...</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1259849340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This stupid laws won't stop Italians from downloading. But it will limit the amount of stuff they can share with the rest of the world.<br><br>Italian culture will suffer from stupid laws like this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This stupid laws wo n't stop Italians from downloading .
But it will limit the amount of stuff they can share with the rest of the world.Italian culture will suffer from stupid laws like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This stupid laws won't stop Italians from downloading.
But it will limit the amount of stuff they can share with the rest of the world.Italian culture will suffer from stupid laws like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</id>
	<title>Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It seems someone should enlighten Italian jurists about technology.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Facilitating a crime has, to my knowledge, never been legal in any Western country. That is precisely what sites like The Pirate Bay do for users in certain countries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems someone should enlighten Italian jurists about technology .
Facilitating a crime has , to my knowledge , never been legal in any Western country .
That is precisely what sites like The Pirate Bay do for users in certain countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems someone should enlighten Italian jurists about technology.
Facilitating a crime has, to my knowledge, never been legal in any Western country.
That is precisely what sites like The Pirate Bay do for users in certain countries.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592200</id>
	<title>Re:Enlighten about technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259846880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its funny because the movies people pirate speak of freedom... and yet they have nothing of the sort in the real world.</p><p>Piracy is a protest. Its todays rebellion. Music is pathetic and corporate. Music today speaks of conformity. Look at Rap, or Autotuned pop crap. Its all about conforming.</p><p>Torrenting is this generations way of rebelling against their parents and the system because there is no other outlet.</p><p>Its a protest, and its valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its funny because the movies people pirate speak of freedom... and yet they have nothing of the sort in the real world.Piracy is a protest .
Its todays rebellion .
Music is pathetic and corporate .
Music today speaks of conformity .
Look at Rap , or Autotuned pop crap .
Its all about conforming.Torrenting is this generations way of rebelling against their parents and the system because there is no other outlet.Its a protest , and its valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its funny because the movies people pirate speak of freedom... and yet they have nothing of the sort in the real world.Piracy is a protest.
Its todays rebellion.
Music is pathetic and corporate.
Music today speaks of conformity.
Look at Rap, or Autotuned pop crap.
Its all about conforming.Torrenting is this generations way of rebelling against their parents and the system because there is no other outlet.Its a protest, and its valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591942</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>AGMW</author>
	<datestamp>1259842320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like most people (here at least!) I'm not happy about the way the big media companies are rail-roading governments around the world to shore up their failing businesses - and even more unhappy at how the Governments are cow-towing to the media moguls and <i>allowing</i> themselves to be manoeuvred into generating more legislation (and don't get me started about ministers feathering their nests before the next election!)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but copyright isn't all bad! If you create something it <b>isn't</b> unfair to expect people to pay for it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like most people ( here at least !
) I 'm not happy about the way the big media companies are rail-roading governments around the world to shore up their failing businesses - and even more unhappy at how the Governments are cow-towing to the media moguls and allowing themselves to be manoeuvred into generating more legislation ( and do n't get me started about ministers feathering their nests before the next election !
) ... but copyright is n't all bad !
If you create something it is n't unfair to expect people to pay for it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like most people (here at least!
) I'm not happy about the way the big media companies are rail-roading governments around the world to shore up their failing businesses - and even more unhappy at how the Governments are cow-towing to the media moguls and allowing themselves to be manoeuvred into generating more legislation (and don't get me started about ministers feathering their nests before the next election!
) ... but copyright isn't all bad!
If you create something it isn't unfair to expect people to pay for it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30600240</id>
	<title>Re:MOD PARENT UP!</title>
	<author>The Wild Norseman</author>
	<datestamp>1259839020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you give a map of the building to a thief knowing full well what he intends to take and he robs a bank yeah you are liable.
"But I didn't rob it I was just showing him paper and ink?!" doesn't work.</p></div><p>

In the United States, it most certainly does work.  At least it works with printed materials, or books like the Anarchists Cookbook wouldn't be published nor (arguably) widely distributed.  I have dozens of such books on my bookshelf and they all have the simple disclaimer, "For Entertainment Only" and the boilerplate "we are not responsible, blah blah" disclaimers.

In fact, along with several books on lockpicking I bought, I bought a set of lockpicks.  I no longer have this set (or any other set of lockpicks) but even owning them can be a crime in and of itself, depending on the circumstances.  Nevertheless, they are still bought and sold and all of it still has legitimate uses.  Just because a thing can be misused doesn't ethically, morally, or legally mean that all uses of that thing should be restricted/controlled/deemed illegal.

I feel that this is essentially the same argument that can be used to defend The Pirate Bay and other similar P2P sites.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you give a map of the building to a thief knowing full well what he intends to take and he robs a bank yeah you are liable .
" But I did n't rob it I was just showing him paper and ink ? !
" does n't work .
In the United States , it most certainly does work .
At least it works with printed materials , or books like the Anarchists Cookbook would n't be published nor ( arguably ) widely distributed .
I have dozens of such books on my bookshelf and they all have the simple disclaimer , " For Entertainment Only " and the boilerplate " we are not responsible , blah blah " disclaimers .
In fact , along with several books on lockpicking I bought , I bought a set of lockpicks .
I no longer have this set ( or any other set of lockpicks ) but even owning them can be a crime in and of itself , depending on the circumstances .
Nevertheless , they are still bought and sold and all of it still has legitimate uses .
Just because a thing can be misused does n't ethically , morally , or legally mean that all uses of that thing should be restricted/controlled/deemed illegal .
I feel that this is essentially the same argument that can be used to defend The Pirate Bay and other similar P2P sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you give a map of the building to a thief knowing full well what he intends to take and he robs a bank yeah you are liable.
"But I didn't rob it I was just showing him paper and ink?!
" doesn't work.
In the United States, it most certainly does work.
At least it works with printed materials, or books like the Anarchists Cookbook wouldn't be published nor (arguably) widely distributed.
I have dozens of such books on my bookshelf and they all have the simple disclaimer, "For Entertainment Only" and the boilerplate "we are not responsible, blah blah" disclaimers.
In fact, along with several books on lockpicking I bought, I bought a set of lockpicks.
I no longer have this set (or any other set of lockpicks) but even owning them can be a crime in and of itself, depending on the circumstances.
Nevertheless, they are still bought and sold and all of it still has legitimate uses.
Just because a thing can be misused doesn't ethically, morally, or legally mean that all uses of that thing should be restricted/controlled/deemed illegal.
I feel that this is essentially the same argument that can be used to defend The Pirate Bay and other similar P2P sites.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591896</id>
	<title>Copyright Holders Are Winning Control of Our Govts</title>
	<author>mrpacmanjel</author>
	<datestamp>1259841600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is extremely worrying.</p><p>Let me get this straight. In previous rulings copyright holders were denied the blocking of sites on the grounds of free speech and censorship.</p><p>The Supreme court gets involved and blocking P2P sites suddenly becomes a good idea?</p><p>We have a Supreme court in the UK and something similar happened recently with "Unfair" bank charges.</p><p>Two (maybe one was an appeal?) court cases were held to decide whether bank charges fell under UK consumer law and thus can be challenged that bank charges were excessive. Both times the courts agreed this was the case.</p><p>The Supreme court got involved and funnily enough ruled that this was not the case which now means banks can charge what they like.</p><p>Since Lord Mandy went on holiday and "bumped into" into Mr Geffen - the recommendations of the digital communications report and the concerns of ISPs were completely ignored. It appears the "3-stikes" legislation is to go ahead after all.<br>The EU took a dim view of this policy and warned the UK it was illegal and against the EU principles of free speech and human rights.</p><p>I'm pretty sure the EU slapped-down France the first time France tried to implement this policy too.</p><p>However, recently:<br>1)France recently tried a second time and no comment from the EU has been heard.<br>2)Lord Mandy's propsed legislation appears to be going ahead.<br>3)Italy are ready to censor the internet.</p><p>What happened to suddenly make all these points "agreeable" and not challenged by the EU ?</p><p>There must have been intense lobbying and money used by copyright holders to silence the many critics of these proposals.</p><p>It appears our "democracy" is firmly under the control of commercial entities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is extremely worrying.Let me get this straight .
In previous rulings copyright holders were denied the blocking of sites on the grounds of free speech and censorship.The Supreme court gets involved and blocking P2P sites suddenly becomes a good idea ? We have a Supreme court in the UK and something similar happened recently with " Unfair " bank charges.Two ( maybe one was an appeal ?
) court cases were held to decide whether bank charges fell under UK consumer law and thus can be challenged that bank charges were excessive .
Both times the courts agreed this was the case.The Supreme court got involved and funnily enough ruled that this was not the case which now means banks can charge what they like.Since Lord Mandy went on holiday and " bumped into " into Mr Geffen - the recommendations of the digital communications report and the concerns of ISPs were completely ignored .
It appears the " 3-stikes " legislation is to go ahead after all.The EU took a dim view of this policy and warned the UK it was illegal and against the EU principles of free speech and human rights.I 'm pretty sure the EU slapped-down France the first time France tried to implement this policy too.However , recently : 1 ) France recently tried a second time and no comment from the EU has been heard.2 ) Lord Mandy 's propsed legislation appears to be going ahead.3 ) Italy are ready to censor the internet.What happened to suddenly make all these points " agreeable " and not challenged by the EU ? There must have been intense lobbying and money used by copyright holders to silence the many critics of these proposals.It appears our " democracy " is firmly under the control of commercial entities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is extremely worrying.Let me get this straight.
In previous rulings copyright holders were denied the blocking of sites on the grounds of free speech and censorship.The Supreme court gets involved and blocking P2P sites suddenly becomes a good idea?We have a Supreme court in the UK and something similar happened recently with "Unfair" bank charges.Two (maybe one was an appeal?
) court cases were held to decide whether bank charges fell under UK consumer law and thus can be challenged that bank charges were excessive.
Both times the courts agreed this was the case.The Supreme court got involved and funnily enough ruled that this was not the case which now means banks can charge what they like.Since Lord Mandy went on holiday and "bumped into" into Mr Geffen - the recommendations of the digital communications report and the concerns of ISPs were completely ignored.
It appears the "3-stikes" legislation is to go ahead after all.The EU took a dim view of this policy and warned the UK it was illegal and against the EU principles of free speech and human rights.I'm pretty sure the EU slapped-down France the first time France tried to implement this policy too.However, recently:1)France recently tried a second time and no comment from the EU has been heard.2)Lord Mandy's propsed legislation appears to be going ahead.3)Italy are ready to censor the internet.What happened to suddenly make all these points "agreeable" and not challenged by the EU ?There must have been intense lobbying and money used by copyright holders to silence the many critics of these proposals.It appears our "democracy" is firmly under the control of commercial entities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592220</id>
	<title>Someone needs to think before they post ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259847180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What "crime" are you talking about? Even though this is Slashdot, it helps to pay a little attention to how you formulate your posts.
<p>
Downloading copyrighted material never was a "crime". At most it's an actionable infringement of someone's copyright. Actionable by the copyright holder that is, not the State. It's not even a misdemeanor.
</p><p>
Besides, torrent sites in and by themselves were never "criminal", as they only facilitate an exchange of information which, among many other things, allows people to infringe copyrights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What " crime " are you talking about ?
Even though this is Slashdot , it helps to pay a little attention to how you formulate your posts .
Downloading copyrighted material never was a " crime " .
At most it 's an actionable infringement of someone 's copyright .
Actionable by the copyright holder that is , not the State .
It 's not even a misdemeanor .
Besides , torrent sites in and by themselves were never " criminal " , as they only facilitate an exchange of information which , among many other things , allows people to infringe copyrights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What "crime" are you talking about?
Even though this is Slashdot, it helps to pay a little attention to how you formulate your posts.
Downloading copyrighted material never was a "crime".
At most it's an actionable infringement of someone's copyright.
Actionable by the copyright holder that is, not the State.
It's not even a misdemeanor.
Besides, torrent sites in and by themselves were never "criminal", as they only facilitate an exchange of information which, among many other things, allows people to infringe copyrights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591876</id>
	<title>Does this mean</title>
	<author>pedestrian crossing</author>
	<datestamp>1259841120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Goodbye EZTV?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Goodbye EZTV ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goodbye EZTV?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30599846</id>
	<title>Re:Enlighten about technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259836380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason I expect to earn my full $80K to $120K, regardless of the India and China folk, is that they are, for the most part, incompetent.  Every time I have been replaced by outsourcing, the outsourcing effort essentially failed to make product.  I still get payed, and payed well, because I deliver.  This isn't going to change anytime soon.  Any idiot CEO who thinks outsourcing will deliver for him, is, by definition, insane.</p><p>(And to flamers, yes, there are plenty of competent IT Indians and Chinese, gainfully employed, making good code.  Maybe 1 in 10)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason I expect to earn my full $ 80K to $ 120K , regardless of the India and China folk , is that they are , for the most part , incompetent .
Every time I have been replaced by outsourcing , the outsourcing effort essentially failed to make product .
I still get payed , and payed well , because I deliver .
This is n't going to change anytime soon .
Any idiot CEO who thinks outsourcing will deliver for him , is , by definition , insane .
( And to flamers , yes , there are plenty of competent IT Indians and Chinese , gainfully employed , making good code .
Maybe 1 in 10 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason I expect to earn my full $80K to $120K, regardless of the India and China folk, is that they are, for the most part, incompetent.
Every time I have been replaced by outsourcing, the outsourcing effort essentially failed to make product.
I still get payed, and payed well, because I deliver.
This isn't going to change anytime soon.
Any idiot CEO who thinks outsourcing will deliver for him, is, by definition, insane.
(And to flamers, yes, there are plenty of competent IT Indians and Chinese, gainfully employed, making good code.
Maybe 1 in 10)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592662</id>
	<title>Re:Enlighten about technology?</title>
	<author>dysplay</author>
	<datestamp>1259851980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ISPs should start censoring Google. See how long an idea like this holds up after that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs should start censoring Google .
See how long an idea like this holds up after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs should start censoring Google.
See how long an idea like this holds up after that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30595198</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright Holders Are Winning Control of Our Go</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1259861640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the country you have listed, France, Italy and UK are the most e-Fascist oriented in the EU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the country you have listed , France , Italy and UK are the most e-Fascist oriented in the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the country you have listed, France, Italy and UK are the most e-Fascist oriented in the EU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30601032</id>
	<title>Re:Not the point ...</title>
	<author>toriver</author>
	<datestamp>1259844300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Downloads is far from the only target here.</p><p>How do you ensure the creator gets money for their work? When I enter a record store and buy a CD, I pay the store. Has the store already paid the artist? Will it pay the artist? Are there a load of other intermediaries that want their cut before any money trickle down to the creator?There is no way for me to know. I can just ASSUME that the store has the right to sell me the CD, and whomever it bought them from has the right to sell them to the store and so on.</p><p>(Though I seem to recall there was some brouhaha over Eminem music being sold in iTunes by a company which, it turned out, did not have the right to do so.)</p><p>Also, if one store charges $20 per CD and another sells the same CDs for $10, if I buy at the second store do I cheat the creator out of 50\% of what they are entitled to? Or does the $10 difference go to the more expensive store and the artist not getting any of that anyway? Is there then any reason to shoose the former store?</p><p>And how do you feel about second-hand sales, legal by the First Sale doctrine? The artist sees no profit from that, only the agent that deals in the second-hand goods (e.g. buys cheap, sells not-as-cheap).</p><p>Solution: Go to concerts, or download then pay the artists directly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Downloads is far from the only target here.How do you ensure the creator gets money for their work ?
When I enter a record store and buy a CD , I pay the store .
Has the store already paid the artist ?
Will it pay the artist ?
Are there a load of other intermediaries that want their cut before any money trickle down to the creator ? There is no way for me to know .
I can just ASSUME that the store has the right to sell me the CD , and whomever it bought them from has the right to sell them to the store and so on .
( Though I seem to recall there was some brouhaha over Eminem music being sold in iTunes by a company which , it turned out , did not have the right to do so .
) Also , if one store charges $ 20 per CD and another sells the same CDs for $ 10 , if I buy at the second store do I cheat the creator out of 50 \ % of what they are entitled to ?
Or does the $ 10 difference go to the more expensive store and the artist not getting any of that anyway ?
Is there then any reason to shoose the former store ? And how do you feel about second-hand sales , legal by the First Sale doctrine ?
The artist sees no profit from that , only the agent that deals in the second-hand goods ( e.g .
buys cheap , sells not-as-cheap ) .Solution : Go to concerts , or download then pay the artists directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Downloads is far from the only target here.How do you ensure the creator gets money for their work?
When I enter a record store and buy a CD, I pay the store.
Has the store already paid the artist?
Will it pay the artist?
Are there a load of other intermediaries that want their cut before any money trickle down to the creator?There is no way for me to know.
I can just ASSUME that the store has the right to sell me the CD, and whomever it bought them from has the right to sell them to the store and so on.
(Though I seem to recall there was some brouhaha over Eminem music being sold in iTunes by a company which, it turned out, did not have the right to do so.
)Also, if one store charges $20 per CD and another sells the same CDs for $10, if I buy at the second store do I cheat the creator out of 50\% of what they are entitled to?
Or does the $10 difference go to the more expensive store and the artist not getting any of that anyway?
Is there then any reason to shoose the former store?And how do you feel about second-hand sales, legal by the First Sale doctrine?
The artist sees no profit from that, only the agent that deals in the second-hand goods (e.g.
buys cheap, sells not-as-cheap).Solution: Go to concerts, or download then pay the artists directly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592752</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>mrclisdue</author>
	<datestamp>1259852640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>erm....except that it's not a crime....it's copyright infringement...a civil matter.....repeat ad nauseum.....repeat ad nauseum....repeat ad nauseum</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>erm....except that it 's not a crime....it 's copyright infringement...a civil matter.....repeat ad nauseum.....repeat ad nauseum....repeat ad nauseum</tokentext>
<sentencetext>erm....except that it's not a crime....it's copyright infringement...a civil matter.....repeat ad nauseum.....repeat ad nauseum....repeat ad nauseum</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592630</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1259851800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> What is facilitating a crime and what is not still comes under question. The pirate bay did not facilitate crime, they simply kept an open record of torrents available with controlling what was available, it was fully automated. No different they rendering anyone assistance with a problem not directly associated with a crime. For example a criminal has a flat and no spare, you see the problem and stop and assist him, once mobile they immediately commit a robbery, which with out your assistance they would not have been able to commit, did or did you not facilitate the crime. </p><p> No different to Pirate bay, they were not the ones making content available and the had no control over the people or the devices making that content available. For example should someone sell a legitimate copy, knowing the person to whom they are selling, are likely to distribute it online, have they facilitated the crime by providing them with a legitimate copy. Especially now, when they are trying to shift to the principle for copyright, that everyone is guilty and they have to prove their innocence upon accusation (at their own expense without any costs being reclaimable, legal corruption at it's worst), as such any attempt to sell a legitimate copy could be considered to be facilitating crime as all possible customers are presumed guilty of copyright infringement by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is facilitating a crime and what is not still comes under question .
The pirate bay did not facilitate crime , they simply kept an open record of torrents available with controlling what was available , it was fully automated .
No different they rendering anyone assistance with a problem not directly associated with a crime .
For example a criminal has a flat and no spare , you see the problem and stop and assist him , once mobile they immediately commit a robbery , which with out your assistance they would not have been able to commit , did or did you not facilitate the crime .
No different to Pirate bay , they were not the ones making content available and the had no control over the people or the devices making that content available .
For example should someone sell a legitimate copy , knowing the person to whom they are selling , are likely to distribute it online , have they facilitated the crime by providing them with a legitimate copy .
Especially now , when they are trying to shift to the principle for copyright , that everyone is guilty and they have to prove their innocence upon accusation ( at their own expense without any costs being reclaimable , legal corruption at it 's worst ) , as such any attempt to sell a legitimate copy could be considered to be facilitating crime as all possible customers are presumed guilty of copyright infringement by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What is facilitating a crime and what is not still comes under question.
The pirate bay did not facilitate crime, they simply kept an open record of torrents available with controlling what was available, it was fully automated.
No different they rendering anyone assistance with a problem not directly associated with a crime.
For example a criminal has a flat and no spare, you see the problem and stop and assist him, once mobile they immediately commit a robbery, which with out your assistance they would not have been able to commit, did or did you not facilitate the crime.
No different to Pirate bay, they were not the ones making content available and the had no control over the people or the devices making that content available.
For example should someone sell a legitimate copy, knowing the person to whom they are selling, are likely to distribute it online, have they facilitated the crime by providing them with a legitimate copy.
Especially now, when they are trying to shift to the principle for copyright, that everyone is guilty and they have to prove their innocence upon accusation (at their own expense without any costs being reclaimable, legal corruption at it's worst), as such any attempt to sell a legitimate copy could be considered to be facilitating crime as all possible customers are presumed guilty of copyright infringement by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592452</id>
	<title>Re:Enlighten about technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259850240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "technological matter" is that contrary what the court seems to think, torrent sites do NOT hold copyrighted material.</p><p>If they can or must censor under Italian law, fine. But the decision needs to be grounded in the actual facts, not misunderstandings thereof.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " technological matter " is that contrary what the court seems to think , torrent sites do NOT hold copyrighted material.If they can or must censor under Italian law , fine .
But the decision needs to be grounded in the actual facts , not misunderstandings thereof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "technological matter" is that contrary what the court seems to think, torrent sites do NOT hold copyrighted material.If they can or must censor under Italian law, fine.
But the decision needs to be grounded in the actual facts, not misunderstandings thereof.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592238</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259847540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you create something it isn't unfair to expect people to pay for it!</i></p><p>If I create something and sell it to someone I expect them to pay for it. If they create a copy of what I sold them and they sell that further, I certainly have no right to expect them to pay me for that. They created the copy, I didn't, so why should I get paid for their work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you create something it is n't unfair to expect people to pay for it ! If I create something and sell it to someone I expect them to pay for it .
If they create a copy of what I sold them and they sell that further , I certainly have no right to expect them to pay me for that .
They created the copy , I did n't , so why should I get paid for their work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you create something it isn't unfair to expect people to pay for it!If I create something and sell it to someone I expect them to pay for it.
If they create a copy of what I sold them and they sell that further, I certainly have no right to expect them to pay me for that.
They created the copy, I didn't, so why should I get paid for their work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591842</id>
	<title>Re:Enlighten about technology?</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1259840700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's not so terrible as censorship, in a sense. As the current copyright law stands, sharing copyrighted material is illegal. The court stated that to prevent illegal behaviour it is legitimate that lower courts order ISPs to block sites that are created to break the law. The same would happen with libel, for example. At least in the highest court of the country we can ask that if something is illegal it should not be allowed. It's a nice principle...
</p><p>
OTOH we can push for copyright law to be changed, but with the international agreements in place it is very difficult for any single country to overhaul it.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so terrible as censorship , in a sense .
As the current copyright law stands , sharing copyrighted material is illegal .
The court stated that to prevent illegal behaviour it is legitimate that lower courts order ISPs to block sites that are created to break the law .
The same would happen with libel , for example .
At least in the highest court of the country we can ask that if something is illegal it should not be allowed .
It 's a nice principle.. . OTOH we can push for copyright law to be changed , but with the international agreements in place it is very difficult for any single country to overhaul it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's not so terrible as censorship, in a sense.
As the current copyright law stands, sharing copyrighted material is illegal.
The court stated that to prevent illegal behaviour it is legitimate that lower courts order ISPs to block sites that are created to break the law.
The same would happen with libel, for example.
At least in the highest court of the country we can ask that if something is illegal it should not be allowed.
It's a nice principle...

OTOH we can push for copyright law to be changed, but with the international agreements in place it is very difficult for any single country to overhaul it.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592014</id>
	<title>Re:Not the point ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259844180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This ruling is just the confirmation of an original one enacted last summer (and promptly suspended) which imposed all major ISPs to block traffic at DNS level.<br>Any user using OpenDNS or his own DNS (or GDNS today) wouldn't be affected.<br>This is nothing more than the perfect italian way to make politics: life goes on just like before, but the big guys can say that something has beeen done.<br>(Yes, i live in italy and feel ashamed of that)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ruling is just the confirmation of an original one enacted last summer ( and promptly suspended ) which imposed all major ISPs to block traffic at DNS level.Any user using OpenDNS or his own DNS ( or GDNS today ) would n't be affected.This is nothing more than the perfect italian way to make politics : life goes on just like before , but the big guys can say that something has beeen done .
( Yes , i live in italy and feel ashamed of that )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ruling is just the confirmation of an original one enacted last summer (and promptly suspended) which imposed all major ISPs to block traffic at DNS level.Any user using OpenDNS or his own DNS (or GDNS today) wouldn't be affected.This is nothing more than the perfect italian way to make politics: life goes on just like before, but the big guys can say that something has beeen done.
(Yes, i live in italy and feel ashamed of that)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592112</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1259845620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly why gun manufacturers and gun stores are sued every time a crime is committed with a gun. Or why Dell is sued every time someone uses a Dell laptop in a crime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why gun manufacturers and gun stores are sued every time a crime is committed with a gun .
Or why Dell is sued every time someone uses a Dell laptop in a crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why gun manufacturers and gun stores are sued every time a crime is committed with a gun.
Or why Dell is sued every time someone uses a Dell laptop in a crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30595994</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259864040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't have mod points but if I did I would mod this up - it's an important issue that needs to be seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have mod points but if I did I would mod this up - it 's an important issue that needs to be seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have mod points but if I did I would mod this up - it's an important issue that needs to be seen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592962</id>
	<title>Re:Enlighten about technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259853720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're protesting against autotuned pop crap, then why bother actually downloading the pop crap? If today's music is so bad, why waste the disk space on it?</p><p>If you really want to encourage a counterculture or better music, go and SPEND your hard earned money on the music you like. That sends a real message.</p><p>I can't see what your protest accomplishes at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're protesting against autotuned pop crap , then why bother actually downloading the pop crap ?
If today 's music is so bad , why waste the disk space on it ? If you really want to encourage a counterculture or better music , go and SPEND your hard earned money on the music you like .
That sends a real message.I ca n't see what your protest accomplishes at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're protesting against autotuned pop crap, then why bother actually downloading the pop crap?
If today's music is so bad, why waste the disk space on it?If you really want to encourage a counterculture or better music, go and SPEND your hard earned money on the music you like.
That sends a real message.I can't see what your protest accomplishes at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591940</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259842260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if you go that way then they should also block search engines as they after all facilitate the search for illegal material.</p><p>If you can't prove that the site sole purpose is to provide illegal content, then you can't ban it. Which rejoin what golodh is saying above : another shiny looking unapplicable law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if you go that way then they should also block search engines as they after all facilitate the search for illegal material.If you ca n't prove that the site sole purpose is to provide illegal content , then you ca n't ban it .
Which rejoin what golodh is saying above : another shiny looking unapplicable law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if you go that way then they should also block search engines as they after all facilitate the search for illegal material.If you can't prove that the site sole purpose is to provide illegal content, then you can't ban it.
Which rejoin what golodh is saying above : another shiny looking unapplicable law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591916</id>
	<title>Re:"Supreme courts"</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1259841900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Judgement by "normal" people is something that was feared a lot in writing the Italian Consitution, because we had seen how it worked with fascism. The principle that people support is enough to justify everything is the essence of fascism and one of the scary mantras of Mr. Berlusconi.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Judgement by " normal " people is something that was feared a lot in writing the Italian Consitution , because we had seen how it worked with fascism .
The principle that people support is enough to justify everything is the essence of fascism and one of the scary mantras of Mr. Berlusconi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judgement by "normal" people is something that was feared a lot in writing the Italian Consitution, because we had seen how it worked with fascism.
The principle that people support is enough to justify everything is the essence of fascism and one of the scary mantras of Mr. Berlusconi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30593570</id>
	<title>Re:Not the point ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259856360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Italy has plenty of laws that would totally paralyze every aspect of public and private life, were they to be rigorously enforced. Such laws look terrific on paper but don't have any practical effect except in lawsuits where they can be (and are) routinely used to club people over the head with. Anyone who has ever driven a car in an Italian city South of Rome (Naples for example, or tried to cross the street in the same city at a pedestrian crossing that's showing a green light for pedestrians) knows all about the practical value of laws in Italy.</p></div><p>You think that's different in any other country?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It is unlawful for any person&mdash;<br>(1) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase <strong>any fish or wildlife or plant</strong> taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any <strong>law, treaty, or regulation of the United States</strong> or in violation of any <strong>Indian tribal law</strong>;<br>(2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce&mdash;<br>(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of <strong>any State</strong> or in violation of <strong>any foreign law</strong>;</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/116/usc\_sec\_16\_00003372----000-.html" title="cornell.edu" rel="nofollow">16 USC 3372</a> [cornell.edu] Via <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane</a> [google.com].</p><p>In Ontario, Canada there's a law from 1892 which states that it's illegal to pretend to be a witch (actually being one is fine however). It was actually used in the last week.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Italy has plenty of laws that would totally paralyze every aspect of public and private life , were they to be rigorously enforced .
Such laws look terrific on paper but do n't have any practical effect except in lawsuits where they can be ( and are ) routinely used to club people over the head with .
Anyone who has ever driven a car in an Italian city South of Rome ( Naples for example , or tried to cross the street in the same city at a pedestrian crossing that 's showing a green light for pedestrians ) knows all about the practical value of laws in Italy.You think that 's different in any other country ? It is unlawful for any person    ( 1 ) to import , export , transport , sell , receive , acquire , or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken , possessed , transported , or sold in violation of any law , treaty , or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law ; ( 2 ) to import , export , transport , sell , receive , acquire , or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce    ( A ) any fish or wildlife taken , possessed , transported , or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law ; 16 USC 3372 [ cornell.edu ] Via " Do n't Talk to the Police " by Professor James Duane [ google.com ] .In Ontario , Canada there 's a law from 1892 which states that it 's illegal to pretend to be a witch ( actually being one is fine however ) .
It was actually used in the last week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Italy has plenty of laws that would totally paralyze every aspect of public and private life, were they to be rigorously enforced.
Such laws look terrific on paper but don't have any practical effect except in lawsuits where they can be (and are) routinely used to club people over the head with.
Anyone who has ever driven a car in an Italian city South of Rome (Naples for example, or tried to cross the street in the same city at a pedestrian crossing that's showing a green light for pedestrians) knows all about the practical value of laws in Italy.You think that's different in any other country?It is unlawful for any person—(1) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law;(2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce—(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law; 16 USC 3372 [cornell.edu] Via "Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane [google.com].In Ontario, Canada there's a law from 1892 which states that it's illegal to pretend to be a witch (actually being one is fine however).
It was actually used in the last week.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591962</id>
	<title>Re:Enlighten about technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259842800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike the US, this decision DOES NOT GENERATE A PRECEDENT. this means that applies just to this case, according to italian regulations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike the US , this decision DOES NOT GENERATE A PRECEDENT .
this means that applies just to this case , according to italian regulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike the US, this decision DOES NOT GENERATE A PRECEDENT.
this means that applies just to this case, according to italian regulations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30593094</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1259854320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So does writing, but no one is trying to ban it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So does writing , but no one is trying to ban it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does writing, but no one is trying to ban it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592070</id>
	<title>Re:Someone needs to enlighten certain geeks...</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1259845140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but copyright isn't all bad! If you create something it isn't unfair to expect people to pay for it!</p></div><p>It is, however, unfair to expect that other people should lose their freedom of expression in order to encourage people to pay for it.<br>Copyright isn't the only means of compensating people for creative work,  In the grand scheme of things it is really quite new and is used to compensate those who do the non-creative work of distribution far more than it is used to compensate the actual creator.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but copyright is n't all bad !
If you create something it is n't unfair to expect people to pay for it ! It is , however , unfair to expect that other people should lose their freedom of expression in order to encourage people to pay for it.Copyright is n't the only means of compensating people for creative work , In the grand scheme of things it is really quite new and is used to compensate those who do the non-creative work of distribution far more than it is used to compensate the actual creator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but copyright isn't all bad!
If you create something it isn't unfair to expect people to pay for it!It is, however, unfair to expect that other people should lose their freedom of expression in order to encourage people to pay for it.Copyright isn't the only means of compensating people for creative work,  In the grand scheme of things it is really quite new and is used to compensate those who do the non-creative work of distribution far more than it is used to compensate the actual creator.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591892</id>
	<title>This was expected...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259841600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever since they solved all their problems related to organized crimes (ie. Mafia), I was expecting them to hit on pirates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since they solved all their problems related to organized crimes ( ie .
Mafia ) , I was expecting them to hit on pirates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since they solved all their problems related to organized crimes (ie.
Mafia), I was expecting them to hit on pirates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30597438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30595338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30601032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30599230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30593570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30593094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30598368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30593682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30599846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30602482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30595994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30682632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30600240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30595198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30595050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0240254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0240254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30600240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30597438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592238
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30595338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30598368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30593094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0240254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30593682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30602482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0240254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30599846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0240254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0240254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30595994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30595050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30595198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0240254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30593570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30594742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30601032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30682632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30592014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30599230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0240254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0240254.30591876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
