<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_04_195208</id>
	<title>Constitutionality of RIAA Damages Challenged</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262602440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes <i>"In <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=SONY\_v\_Tenenbaum">SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum</a>, the defendant has filed a motion for new trial, attacking, among other things, the constitutionality of <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/31/2236229/RIAA-Awarded-675000-In-Tenenbaum-Trial">the jury's $675,000 award</a> as being violative of due process. In his <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/sony\_tenenbaum\_100104MotNewTrial.pdf">32-page brief</a> (PDF), Tenenbaum argues that the award exceeded constitutional due process standards, both under the Court's 1919 decision in St. Louis Railway v. Williams, as well as under its more recent authorities State Farm v. Campbell and BMW v. Gore. Defendant also argues that the Court's application of fair use doctrine was incorrect, that statutory damages should not be imposed against music consumers, and that the Court erred in a key evidentiary ruling."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum , the defendant has filed a motion for new trial , attacking , among other things , the constitutionality of the jury 's $ 675,000 award as being violative of due process .
In his 32-page brief ( PDF ) , Tenenbaum argues that the award exceeded constitutional due process standards , both under the Court 's 1919 decision in St. Louis Railway v. Williams , as well as under its more recent authorities State Farm v. Campbell and BMW v. Gore. Defendant also argues that the Court 's application of fair use doctrine was incorrect , that statutory damages should not be imposed against music consumers , and that the Court erred in a key evidentiary ruling .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the defendant has filed a motion for new trial, attacking, among other things, the constitutionality of the jury's $675,000 award as being violative of due process.
In his 32-page brief (PDF), Tenenbaum argues that the award exceeded constitutional due process standards, both under the Court's 1919 decision in St. Louis Railway v. Williams, as well as under its more recent authorities State Farm v. Campbell and BMW v. Gore. Defendant also argues that the Court's application of fair use doctrine was incorrect, that statutory damages should not be imposed against music consumers, and that the Court erred in a key evidentiary ruling.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649186</id>
	<title>Calculating potential actual damages</title>
	<author>Tawnos</author>
	<datestamp>1262612760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The damages claimed seem unreasonably high no matter how I see it spun.</p><p>Most US people have, at most, 1/4 megabyte/second upload on their home connections (2 megabits/second up). In my experience, compressed songs average approximately 6 megabytes for so-so quality, 8 megabytes for good quality.</p><p>Assuming the defendant had their computer sharing 24/7 at absolute maximum speed, every day they would be capable of sharing 3,600 songs (and not use their internet connection for any other purpose). At $1/song, and punitive damages of $675,000, the defendant would have to be uploading for 187.5 days straight at maximum utilization. That's over half a year of not using the computer, no internet outages, no ISP throttling due to uploading, et cetera. That also assumes that there were that many downloads from this single user over such a time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The damages claimed seem unreasonably high no matter how I see it spun.Most US people have , at most , 1/4 megabyte/second upload on their home connections ( 2 megabits/second up ) .
In my experience , compressed songs average approximately 6 megabytes for so-so quality , 8 megabytes for good quality.Assuming the defendant had their computer sharing 24/7 at absolute maximum speed , every day they would be capable of sharing 3,600 songs ( and not use their internet connection for any other purpose ) .
At $ 1/song , and punitive damages of $ 675,000 , the defendant would have to be uploading for 187.5 days straight at maximum utilization .
That 's over half a year of not using the computer , no internet outages , no ISP throttling due to uploading , et cetera .
That also assumes that there were that many downloads from this single user over such a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The damages claimed seem unreasonably high no matter how I see it spun.Most US people have, at most, 1/4 megabyte/second upload on their home connections (2 megabits/second up).
In my experience, compressed songs average approximately 6 megabytes for so-so quality, 8 megabytes for good quality.Assuming the defendant had their computer sharing 24/7 at absolute maximum speed, every day they would be capable of sharing 3,600 songs (and not use their internet connection for any other purpose).
At $1/song, and punitive damages of $675,000, the defendant would have to be uploading for 187.5 days straight at maximum utilization.
That's over half a year of not using the computer, no internet outages, no ISP throttling due to uploading, et cetera.
That also assumes that there were that many downloads from this single user over such a time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651578</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>cpt kangarooski</author>
	<datestamp>1262629980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It used to be that making copies of creative works was a physical task that was the domain of professionals. As such, enforcing copyrights was relatively easy.</i></p><p>A minor quibble: Making copies using state of the art methods was the domain of professionals. Most people didn't have their own printing press, but if you were literate and had ink, pen, paper, and time, you could still copy a book by hand. Even today, in fact, you could not compete with a CD or DVD factory if you were merely armed with a generic writable drive and recordable disks. But the modern techniques that are in the hands of ordinary people are now sufficiently good -- particularly those involving network file sharing -- that enough of the gap is closed.</p><p><i>Copyrights exist so that creators of creative works can be given an incentive to create. Their creations, on the whole, enrich society. That's the basic copyright bargain: You write good books and we, as a society, will insure that you can make a living doing it.</i></p><p>But now we've moved beyond quibbling. Copyrights exist to serve the public interest. Part of the means by which they work is to give authors an additional incentive to create and publish beyond those which are naturally present. Creation and publication are both important, as unpublished works do so little good for society that they may as well not exist. And copyright is merely an economic incentive. Other incentives include fame, art-for-art's sake, and even money unrelated to a copyright (e.g. selling original works, rather than additional copies; artistic labor as a service like any other). Sometimes those other incentives will be sufficient, as is the case for all works created before copyright existed, and for many works since. When no additional incentive is needed to encourage the creation and publication of works, it would be wasteful to grant a copyright; why pay for the cow, if you get the milk for free?</p><p>Additionally, copyrights are merely a sort of monopoly. At the expense of some waste in transactional costs, they act as a lens or funnel, focusing whatever copyright-related economic value a work has on the copyright holder. If the work is economically valueless, however -- like the typical Slashdot post -- then the copyright is valueless too. The author gets nothing other than a useless exclusive right.</p><p>An author who makes a work that flops may get a copyright, but society will not promise him a living. It's all up to the whims of the market. The vast majority of authors don't make a living based on their copyrights, in fact.</p><p><i>Notice that I said fairly compensated. That means that consumers of creative works (readers of books, listeners of music, watchers of movies and TV shows) pay commensurate with their consumption, and authors get paid commensurate with the relative rates of consumption.</i></p><p>Why is that fair? More importantly, why do we care? The goal of copyright is to serve the public interest, remember; it needn't be fair. We want as many works created and published as possible, for as few restrictions on the public as possible, in both duration and scope. So long as the public interest is maximally satisfied, why should our copyright policy care whether authors live comfortably or shiver in garrets? We should have social welfare to help the poor, whether they are authors or not. Not copyright, which is more like giving lottery tickets to only a small subgroup of people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It used to be that making copies of creative works was a physical task that was the domain of professionals .
As such , enforcing copyrights was relatively easy.A minor quibble : Making copies using state of the art methods was the domain of professionals .
Most people did n't have their own printing press , but if you were literate and had ink , pen , paper , and time , you could still copy a book by hand .
Even today , in fact , you could not compete with a CD or DVD factory if you were merely armed with a generic writable drive and recordable disks .
But the modern techniques that are in the hands of ordinary people are now sufficiently good -- particularly those involving network file sharing -- that enough of the gap is closed.Copyrights exist so that creators of creative works can be given an incentive to create .
Their creations , on the whole , enrich society .
That 's the basic copyright bargain : You write good books and we , as a society , will insure that you can make a living doing it.But now we 've moved beyond quibbling .
Copyrights exist to serve the public interest .
Part of the means by which they work is to give authors an additional incentive to create and publish beyond those which are naturally present .
Creation and publication are both important , as unpublished works do so little good for society that they may as well not exist .
And copyright is merely an economic incentive .
Other incentives include fame , art-for-art 's sake , and even money unrelated to a copyright ( e.g .
selling original works , rather than additional copies ; artistic labor as a service like any other ) .
Sometimes those other incentives will be sufficient , as is the case for all works created before copyright existed , and for many works since .
When no additional incentive is needed to encourage the creation and publication of works , it would be wasteful to grant a copyright ; why pay for the cow , if you get the milk for free ? Additionally , copyrights are merely a sort of monopoly .
At the expense of some waste in transactional costs , they act as a lens or funnel , focusing whatever copyright-related economic value a work has on the copyright holder .
If the work is economically valueless , however -- like the typical Slashdot post -- then the copyright is valueless too .
The author gets nothing other than a useless exclusive right.An author who makes a work that flops may get a copyright , but society will not promise him a living .
It 's all up to the whims of the market .
The vast majority of authors do n't make a living based on their copyrights , in fact.Notice that I said fairly compensated .
That means that consumers of creative works ( readers of books , listeners of music , watchers of movies and TV shows ) pay commensurate with their consumption , and authors get paid commensurate with the relative rates of consumption.Why is that fair ?
More importantly , why do we care ?
The goal of copyright is to serve the public interest , remember ; it need n't be fair .
We want as many works created and published as possible , for as few restrictions on the public as possible , in both duration and scope .
So long as the public interest is maximally satisfied , why should our copyright policy care whether authors live comfortably or shiver in garrets ?
We should have social welfare to help the poor , whether they are authors or not .
Not copyright , which is more like giving lottery tickets to only a small subgroup of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It used to be that making copies of creative works was a physical task that was the domain of professionals.
As such, enforcing copyrights was relatively easy.A minor quibble: Making copies using state of the art methods was the domain of professionals.
Most people didn't have their own printing press, but if you were literate and had ink, pen, paper, and time, you could still copy a book by hand.
Even today, in fact, you could not compete with a CD or DVD factory if you were merely armed with a generic writable drive and recordable disks.
But the modern techniques that are in the hands of ordinary people are now sufficiently good -- particularly those involving network file sharing -- that enough of the gap is closed.Copyrights exist so that creators of creative works can be given an incentive to create.
Their creations, on the whole, enrich society.
That's the basic copyright bargain: You write good books and we, as a society, will insure that you can make a living doing it.But now we've moved beyond quibbling.
Copyrights exist to serve the public interest.
Part of the means by which they work is to give authors an additional incentive to create and publish beyond those which are naturally present.
Creation and publication are both important, as unpublished works do so little good for society that they may as well not exist.
And copyright is merely an economic incentive.
Other incentives include fame, art-for-art's sake, and even money unrelated to a copyright (e.g.
selling original works, rather than additional copies; artistic labor as a service like any other).
Sometimes those other incentives will be sufficient, as is the case for all works created before copyright existed, and for many works since.
When no additional incentive is needed to encourage the creation and publication of works, it would be wasteful to grant a copyright; why pay for the cow, if you get the milk for free?Additionally, copyrights are merely a sort of monopoly.
At the expense of some waste in transactional costs, they act as a lens or funnel, focusing whatever copyright-related economic value a work has on the copyright holder.
If the work is economically valueless, however -- like the typical Slashdot post -- then the copyright is valueless too.
The author gets nothing other than a useless exclusive right.An author who makes a work that flops may get a copyright, but society will not promise him a living.
It's all up to the whims of the market.
The vast majority of authors don't make a living based on their copyrights, in fact.Notice that I said fairly compensated.
That means that consumers of creative works (readers of books, listeners of music, watchers of movies and TV shows) pay commensurate with their consumption, and authors get paid commensurate with the relative rates of consumption.Why is that fair?
More importantly, why do we care?
The goal of copyright is to serve the public interest, remember; it needn't be fair.
We want as many works created and published as possible, for as few restrictions on the public as possible, in both duration and scope.
So long as the public interest is maximally satisfied, why should our copyright policy care whether authors live comfortably or shiver in garrets?
We should have social welfare to help the poor, whether they are authors or not.
Not copyright, which is more like giving lottery tickets to only a small subgroup of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649420</id>
	<title>Re:Argument != Ruling</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1262613840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The 'making available' argument was aired in the Thomas case (although her counsel didn't bother to bring the precedents to court) and the jury instructions were that making available was sufficient to found liability</p></div><p> The judge in the Thomas case reversed himself on that, realizing that "making available" was NOT sufficient to find distribution. Slight detail you seem to have overlooked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'making available ' argument was aired in the Thomas case ( although her counsel did n't bother to bring the precedents to court ) and the jury instructions were that making available was sufficient to found liability The judge in the Thomas case reversed himself on that , realizing that " making available " was NOT sufficient to find distribution .
Slight detail you seem to have overlooked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'making available' argument was aired in the Thomas case (although her counsel didn't bother to bring the precedents to court) and the jury instructions were that making available was sufficient to found liability The judge in the Thomas case reversed himself on that, realizing that "making available" was NOT sufficient to find distribution.
Slight detail you seem to have overlooked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648030</id>
	<title>singles sell for 99 cents to $1.50.</title>
	<author>swschrad</author>
	<datestamp>1262607480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's the damages, folks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's the damages , folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's the damages, folks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648468</id>
	<title>Re:What's the legal limit?</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1262609640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>According to 17 U.S.C. 504 (<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504" title="copyright.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html</a> [copyright.gov]), the minimum is $750 per work infringed while $30,000 is the max.  However, if the infringement is <strong>willfully</strong> committed it jumps to $150,000 but if the infringement is committed "innocently" (naively might be a better word) then it drops to $200.

 What is really neat is the presumption of willfullness under section 3 when the violator "knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement."</p></div><p>Yeah, that is really neat, and useful, too - notice the important parts "knowingly provided... <b>materially false contact information to a domain name registrar</b>".  That's not targeting normal p2p file sharers, but people who set up a commercial website to sell copyrighted works under a false name so that they can't be caught. This is fraudulent and malicious behavior, and exactly the sort of thing we want to slap down with punitive damages.</p><p>
What has <i>never</i> been argued, however, is that the $150k level should be for this sort of egregious, fraudulent and malicious behavior - i.e. that <i>that</i> is the definition of "willful", rather than the RIAA's definition of "anyone who has ever seen a copyright notice or one of our 'you wouldn't steal a car' advertisements". Thomas didn't challenge it, and Tenenbaum offered up a definition of "we know it when we see it" without any real argument, which is why it failed before it even got off the ground.  The proper level of damages that should have been presented to the jury was $750-$30k, not $750-$150k, and that should be a reversable error.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to 17 U.S.C .
504 ( http : //www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html [ copyright.gov ] ) , the minimum is $ 750 per work infringed while $ 30,000 is the max .
However , if the infringement is willfully committed it jumps to $ 150,000 but if the infringement is committed " innocently " ( naively might be a better word ) then it drops to $ 200 .
What is really neat is the presumption of willfullness under section 3 when the violator " knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar , domain name registry , or other domain name registration authority in registering , maintaining , or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement .
" Yeah , that is really neat , and useful , too - notice the important parts " knowingly provided... materially false contact information to a domain name registrar " .
That 's not targeting normal p2p file sharers , but people who set up a commercial website to sell copyrighted works under a false name so that they ca n't be caught .
This is fraudulent and malicious behavior , and exactly the sort of thing we want to slap down with punitive damages .
What has never been argued , however , is that the $ 150k level should be for this sort of egregious , fraudulent and malicious behavior - i.e .
that that is the definition of " willful " , rather than the RIAA 's definition of " anyone who has ever seen a copyright notice or one of our 'you would n't steal a car ' advertisements " .
Thomas did n't challenge it , and Tenenbaum offered up a definition of " we know it when we see it " without any real argument , which is why it failed before it even got off the ground .
The proper level of damages that should have been presented to the jury was $ 750- $ 30k , not $ 750- $ 150k , and that should be a reversable error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to 17 U.S.C.
504 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html [copyright.gov]), the minimum is $750 per work infringed while $30,000 is the max.
However, if the infringement is willfully committed it jumps to $150,000 but if the infringement is committed "innocently" (naively might be a better word) then it drops to $200.
What is really neat is the presumption of willfullness under section 3 when the violator "knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement.
"Yeah, that is really neat, and useful, too - notice the important parts "knowingly provided... materially false contact information to a domain name registrar".
That's not targeting normal p2p file sharers, but people who set up a commercial website to sell copyrighted works under a false name so that they can't be caught.
This is fraudulent and malicious behavior, and exactly the sort of thing we want to slap down with punitive damages.
What has never been argued, however, is that the $150k level should be for this sort of egregious, fraudulent and malicious behavior - i.e.
that that is the definition of "willful", rather than the RIAA's definition of "anyone who has ever seen a copyright notice or one of our 'you wouldn't steal a car' advertisements".
Thomas didn't challenge it, and Tenenbaum offered up a definition of "we know it when we see it" without any real argument, which is why it failed before it even got off the ground.
The proper level of damages that should have been presented to the jury was $750-$30k, not $750-$150k, and that should be a reversable error.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649392</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1262613660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort.</p></div><p>If the defendant wins the statutory damages argument in court on <b> <i>constitutional grounds</i> </b> then it will not have been wasted effort because it means that the copyright holders would have to get the Constitution amended to specifically allow for LARGE statutory damages for copyright infringement. It requires a super-majority vote in both houses of Congress and a super-majority vote of the states to amend the US Constitution. The RIAA may pay handsomely, but <i>no amount of payola could muster that kind of support</i>. In any case, I don't believe that the RIAA will be able to completely outmaneuver the courts via the legislature; logic and reason will prevail in the end (although it might take a while yet).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort.If the defendant wins the statutory damages argument in court on constitutional grounds then it will not have been wasted effort because it means that the copyright holders would have to get the Constitution amended to specifically allow for LARGE statutory damages for copyright infringement .
It requires a super-majority vote in both houses of Congress and a super-majority vote of the states to amend the US Constitution .
The RIAA may pay handsomely , but no amount of payola could muster that kind of support .
In any case , I do n't believe that the RIAA will be able to completely outmaneuver the courts via the legislature ; logic and reason will prevail in the end ( although it might take a while yet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort.If the defendant wins the statutory damages argument in court on  constitutional grounds  then it will not have been wasted effort because it means that the copyright holders would have to get the Constitution amended to specifically allow for LARGE statutory damages for copyright infringement.
It requires a super-majority vote in both houses of Congress and a super-majority vote of the states to amend the US Constitution.
The RIAA may pay handsomely, but no amount of payola could muster that kind of support.
In any case, I don't believe that the RIAA will be able to completely outmaneuver the courts via the legislature; logic and reason will prevail in the end (although it might take a while yet).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649658</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>halcyon1234</author>
	<datestamp>1262615280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort. RIAA pay politicians handsomely, and generally gets the laws they want. If they temporarily loose in court, they just pay to have the laws changed, and than they win.</p><blockquote><div><p>As much as I hate to admit it, you're half right. It is a losing effort.  But the goal is to make sure it's a losing effort for the RIAA as well.  The best case scenario for them is that they collect every penny of the $675k.  I'm willing to bet they owe their law firm a good chunk of that in billable hours.  The longer the defendant drags this out (no arguments from me on that one), the more costly it will be form them.  At some point, the money gained from the settlement (or however much they can squeeze from him as creditors during a bankrupcy) will be far less than the money they owe their lawyers.</p><p>As for the intangible benefits... they're hoping this will "discourage" "pirates" from committing further acts of pirating. Based on the attitudes I've encountered, only a small fraction of people I know are changing their downloading habits. Of those that do, most are switching to private trackers or using encryption.  A small minority have stopped downloading "illegally", and a small minority of THAT sample have switched to buying only. So, what, an additional ten or twenty bucks, maybe?</p><p>As for public perception... whenever someone asks me about "that guy they read about in the news", I just tell them that the case is still in appeals on constitutional question grounds.  That usually results in them shrugging their shoulders and forgetting about it; unless there's another "news at 11" piece about it, it'll fall out of their attention span in a week at most.</p><p>I don't think this ruling is gaining them any of the benefits, tangible or otherwise, that they'd hoped for.</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort .
RIAA pay politicians handsomely , and generally gets the laws they want .
If they temporarily loose in court , they just pay to have the laws changed , and than they win.As much as I hate to admit it , you 're half right .
It is a losing effort .
But the goal is to make sure it 's a losing effort for the RIAA as well .
The best case scenario for them is that they collect every penny of the $ 675k .
I 'm willing to bet they owe their law firm a good chunk of that in billable hours .
The longer the defendant drags this out ( no arguments from me on that one ) , the more costly it will be form them .
At some point , the money gained from the settlement ( or however much they can squeeze from him as creditors during a bankrupcy ) will be far less than the money they owe their lawyers.As for the intangible benefits... they 're hoping this will " discourage " " pirates " from committing further acts of pirating .
Based on the attitudes I 've encountered , only a small fraction of people I know are changing their downloading habits .
Of those that do , most are switching to private trackers or using encryption .
A small minority have stopped downloading " illegally " , and a small minority of THAT sample have switched to buying only .
So , what , an additional ten or twenty bucks , maybe ? As for public perception... whenever someone asks me about " that guy they read about in the news " , I just tell them that the case is still in appeals on constitutional question grounds .
That usually results in them shrugging their shoulders and forgetting about it ; unless there 's another " news at 11 " piece about it , it 'll fall out of their attention span in a week at most.I do n't think this ruling is gaining them any of the benefits , tangible or otherwise , that they 'd hoped for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort.
RIAA pay politicians handsomely, and generally gets the laws they want.
If they temporarily loose in court, they just pay to have the laws changed, and than they win.As much as I hate to admit it, you're half right.
It is a losing effort.
But the goal is to make sure it's a losing effort for the RIAA as well.
The best case scenario for them is that they collect every penny of the $675k.
I'm willing to bet they owe their law firm a good chunk of that in billable hours.
The longer the defendant drags this out (no arguments from me on that one), the more costly it will be form them.
At some point, the money gained from the settlement (or however much they can squeeze from him as creditors during a bankrupcy) will be far less than the money they owe their lawyers.As for the intangible benefits... they're hoping this will "discourage" "pirates" from committing further acts of pirating.
Based on the attitudes I've encountered, only a small fraction of people I know are changing their downloading habits.
Of those that do, most are switching to private trackers or using encryption.
A small minority have stopped downloading "illegally", and a small minority of THAT sample have switched to buying only.
So, what, an additional ten or twenty bucks, maybe?As for public perception... whenever someone asks me about "that guy they read about in the news", I just tell them that the case is still in appeals on constitutional question grounds.
That usually results in them shrugging their shoulders and forgetting about it; unless there's another "news at 11" piece about it, it'll fall out of their attention span in a week at most.I don't think this ruling is gaining them any of the benefits, tangible or otherwise, that they'd hoped for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651188</id>
	<title>Re:Why are so many lawyers so stupid</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1262626260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is where you failed:</p><blockquote><div><p> Now, I happen to agree that the law is wrong and that the actual damages suffered by the entire record indusry as a result of "file sharing" is close to zero.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actual damages have nothing to do with the award. The award is statutory.  Just like being five minutes late to feed the meter a quarter will get you a $15.00 fine. The damages awarded are not necessarily related to the amount of actual damages. And, it could have been <b>much</b> worse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where you failed : Now , I happen to agree that the law is wrong and that the actual damages suffered by the entire record indusry as a result of " file sharing " is close to zero.Actual damages have nothing to do with the award .
The award is statutory .
Just like being five minutes late to feed the meter a quarter will get you a $ 15.00 fine .
The damages awarded are not necessarily related to the amount of actual damages .
And , it could have been much worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where you failed: Now, I happen to agree that the law is wrong and that the actual damages suffered by the entire record indusry as a result of "file sharing" is close to zero.Actual damages have nothing to do with the award.
The award is statutory.
Just like being five minutes late to feed the meter a quarter will get you a $15.00 fine.
The damages awarded are not necessarily related to the amount of actual damages.
And, it could have been much worse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648192</id>
	<title>Re:singles sell for 99 cents to $1.50.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you think I should be allowed to shoplift and if I get caught I should only pay the cost of what I've taken? That beats shopping!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you think I should be allowed to shoplift and if I get caught I should only pay the cost of what I 've taken ?
That beats shopping !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you think I should be allowed to shoplift and if I get caught I should only pay the cost of what I've taken?
That beats shopping!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649014</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1262611920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but not for his uploading, which infringed the right to distribute</p></div></blockquote><p>Was there any evidence offered in this case that anyone's "right to distribute" was infringed because there were songs in this guy's "shared" folder?  I get the feeling that there are a lot of logical leaps that have to be made before the preponderance of evidence shows that anyone actually received any songs from this particular guy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but not for his uploading , which infringed the right to distributeWas there any evidence offered in this case that anyone 's " right to distribute " was infringed because there were songs in this guy 's " shared " folder ?
I get the feeling that there are a lot of logical leaps that have to be made before the preponderance of evidence shows that anyone actually received any songs from this particular guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but not for his uploading, which infringed the right to distributeWas there any evidence offered in this case that anyone's "right to distribute" was infringed because there were songs in this guy's "shared" folder?
I get the feeling that there are a lot of logical leaps that have to be made before the preponderance of evidence shows that anyone actually received any songs from this particular guy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648200</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Been nailed for speeding or running red lights recently, have we?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Been nailed for speeding or running red lights recently , have we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Been nailed for speeding or running red lights recently, have we?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647764</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to express this sentiment.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262606160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Duh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30656806</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262714700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort.</i></p><p>Don't you mean "loosening"? As in being loosed from your money?</p><p><i>If they temporarily loose in court</i></p><p>Only the judge can do that. He can jail you or loose you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort.Do n't you mean " loosening " ?
As in being loosed from your money ? If they temporarily loose in courtOnly the judge can do that .
He can jail you or loose you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort.Don't you mean "loosening"?
As in being loosed from your money?If they temporarily loose in courtOnly the judge can do that.
He can jail you or loose you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648558</id>
	<title>Levy's on blank media in the US (and elsewhere) ..</title>
	<author>yossie</author>
	<datestamp>1262610000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, apparently there is a levy on blank media in place in various countries, to the tune of 3\% (according to wikipedia) in the US.  Assuming this is true, and specifically in the US, is it constitutional to charge someone a tax to cover the costs of piracy and then also be able to take them to court for being pirates?!  Isn't that double jeopardy?  I haven't seen this defense used in any of the cases I've followed and, in fact, it may be based on incorrect understanding of the law (not a lawyer here.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , apparently there is a levy on blank media in place in various countries , to the tune of 3 \ % ( according to wikipedia ) in the US .
Assuming this is true , and specifically in the US , is it constitutional to charge someone a tax to cover the costs of piracy and then also be able to take them to court for being pirates ? !
Is n't that double jeopardy ?
I have n't seen this defense used in any of the cases I 've followed and , in fact , it may be based on incorrect understanding of the law ( not a lawyer here .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, apparently there is a levy on blank media in place in various countries, to the tune of 3\% (according to wikipedia) in the US.
Assuming this is true, and specifically in the US, is it constitutional to charge someone a tax to cover the costs of piracy and then also be able to take them to court for being pirates?!
Isn't that double jeopardy?
I haven't seen this defense used in any of the cases I've followed and, in fact, it may be based on incorrect understanding of the law (not a lawyer here.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647822</id>
	<title>Obligatory...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262606460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will be viewed as the proverbial "Turd in the punch-bowl". From what I have been able to infer from reading about these various cases, it is NEVER good to tell the judge that he did something W.. Wr... Wrro..... "WRONG"... (props to the Fonz). I do hope this and the other cases are viewed properly and have all the due backlash inferred,(complete refusal to purchase RIAA material, boycotting, picketing etc. etc. etc.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be viewed as the proverbial " Turd in the punch-bowl " .
From what I have been able to infer from reading about these various cases , it is NEVER good to tell the judge that he did something W.. Wr... Wrro..... " WRONG " ... ( props to the Fonz ) .
I do hope this and the other cases are viewed properly and have all the due backlash inferred , ( complete refusal to purchase RIAA material , boycotting , picketing etc .
etc. etc .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be viewed as the proverbial "Turd in the punch-bowl".
From what I have been able to infer from reading about these various cases, it is NEVER good to tell the judge that he did something W.. Wr... Wrro..... "WRONG"... (props to the Fonz).
I do hope this and the other cases are viewed properly and have all the due backlash inferred,(complete refusal to purchase RIAA material, boycotting, picketing etc.
etc. etc.
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648520</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1262609880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a difference between fair use and pirating.</p></div><p>Yeah. This wasn't fair use. They lost on that one, even though Tenenbaum tried to create a whole new definition of what fair use was that was basically "it's not fair!" Makes you really wonder about the quality of Harvard Law School's IP department...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference between fair use and pirating.Yeah .
This was n't fair use .
They lost on that one , even though Tenenbaum tried to create a whole new definition of what fair use was that was basically " it 's not fair !
" Makes you really wonder about the quality of Harvard Law School 's IP department.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference between fair use and pirating.Yeah.
This wasn't fair use.
They lost on that one, even though Tenenbaum tried to create a whole new definition of what fair use was that was basically "it's not fair!
" Makes you really wonder about the quality of Harvard Law School's IP department...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649512</id>
	<title>Re:If the fees are high to discourage people...</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1262614260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speeding tickets are a gold-mine for municipal budgets.</p><p>If you have a cash cow, you milk it gently.  Not rip the udders clean off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speeding tickets are a gold-mine for municipal budgets.If you have a cash cow , you milk it gently .
Not rip the udders clean off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speeding tickets are a gold-mine for municipal budgets.If you have a cash cow, you milk it gently.
Not rip the udders clean off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649476</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1262614080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort. RIAA pay politicians handsomely, and generally gets the laws they want. If they temporarily loose in court, they just pay to have the laws changed, and than they win. The draconian penalties as well as the never expiring rights RIAA enjoy is an amazing perversion.</p></div><p>This is why the drafters of the constitution put the judicial branch into place. No matter how many lawmakers they bribe, the RIAA can never change the constitution, nor can they implement any unconstitutional laws.</p><p>This is all in theory of course, as there are any number of ways that this can fall apart (the RIAA could bribe them too, the judges could be as brainless as the politicians (or appointed by Obama or any other politician who heavily caters to the MAFIAA), or, as in the case of the Cherokee tribe back in the reign of Andrew Jackson IIRC, the executive branch could simply ignore their decrees). But assuming that none of these things happen, then the cat and mouse game will continue forever - the RIAA congress can make as many laws as they want and the judicial branch will continue striking them down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort .
RIAA pay politicians handsomely , and generally gets the laws they want .
If they temporarily loose in court , they just pay to have the laws changed , and than they win .
The draconian penalties as well as the never expiring rights RIAA enjoy is an amazing perversion.This is why the drafters of the constitution put the judicial branch into place .
No matter how many lawmakers they bribe , the RIAA can never change the constitution , nor can they implement any unconstitutional laws.This is all in theory of course , as there are any number of ways that this can fall apart ( the RIAA could bribe them too , the judges could be as brainless as the politicians ( or appointed by Obama or any other politician who heavily caters to the MAFIAA ) , or , as in the case of the Cherokee tribe back in the reign of Andrew Jackson IIRC , the executive branch could simply ignore their decrees ) .
But assuming that none of these things happen , then the cat and mouse game will continue forever - the RIAA congress can make as many laws as they want and the judicial branch will continue striking them down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort.
RIAA pay politicians handsomely, and generally gets the laws they want.
If they temporarily loose in court, they just pay to have the laws changed, and than they win.
The draconian penalties as well as the never expiring rights RIAA enjoy is an amazing perversion.This is why the drafters of the constitution put the judicial branch into place.
No matter how many lawmakers they bribe, the RIAA can never change the constitution, nor can they implement any unconstitutional laws.This is all in theory of course, as there are any number of ways that this can fall apart (the RIAA could bribe them too, the judges could be as brainless as the politicians (or appointed by Obama or any other politician who heavily caters to the MAFIAA), or, as in the case of the Cherokee tribe back in the reign of Andrew Jackson IIRC, the executive branch could simply ignore their decrees).
But assuming that none of these things happen, then the cat and mouse game will continue forever - the RIAA congress can make as many laws as they want and the judicial branch will continue striking them down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651702</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262631480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Words matter.  This is not a crime.  IANAL, but AFAIK a crime is prosecuted by the state.  This is a civil lawsuit between two parties where the judge ruled that the plaintiff had a valid claim and assessed damages as he/she judged appropriately (the damages &amp; ruling are what are being appealed).</p><p>In a criminal lawsuit, the prosecution typically has no avenue for appeal in the States (double jeopardy).  In civil lawsuits appeals to the decision can be brought by either party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Words matter .
This is not a crime .
IANAL , but AFAIK a crime is prosecuted by the state .
This is a civil lawsuit between two parties where the judge ruled that the plaintiff had a valid claim and assessed damages as he/she judged appropriately ( the damages &amp; ruling are what are being appealed ) .In a criminal lawsuit , the prosecution typically has no avenue for appeal in the States ( double jeopardy ) .
In civil lawsuits appeals to the decision can be brought by either party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Words matter.
This is not a crime.
IANAL, but AFAIK a crime is prosecuted by the state.
This is a civil lawsuit between two parties where the judge ruled that the plaintiff had a valid claim and assessed damages as he/she judged appropriately (the damages &amp; ruling are what are being appealed).In a criminal lawsuit, the prosecution typically has no avenue for appeal in the States (double jeopardy).
In civil lawsuits appeals to the decision can be brought by either party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648098</id>
	<title>Re:Argument != Ruling</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262607900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but NewYorkCountyLawyer seems to have a "right of way" to go straight to the homepage based on past contributions. That user provides "play by play" of the cases where somebody dares challenge the RIAA, as the result is either "Somebody else lost on this so don't bother!" or "RIAA loses again! New argument to use against them is..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but NewYorkCountyLawyer seems to have a " right of way " to go straight to the homepage based on past contributions .
That user provides " play by play " of the cases where somebody dares challenge the RIAA , as the result is either " Somebody else lost on this so do n't bother !
" or " RIAA loses again !
New argument to use against them is... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but NewYorkCountyLawyer seems to have a "right of way" to go straight to the homepage based on past contributions.
That user provides "play by play" of the cases where somebody dares challenge the RIAA, as the result is either "Somebody else lost on this so don't bother!
" or "RIAA loses again!
New argument to use against them is..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30655762</id>
	<title>Re:If the fees are high to discourage people...</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1262710980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>speeding which can result in death should have a fine of $100,000 at the very least.</p> </div><p>AT LEAST. If you speed, you could subtly changing the flow of traffic, which could cause a schoolchild across town to be hit by a car, who could have grown up to be the future POTUS, who could have been the only leader brilliant enough to fend off a possible alien invasion, and that would make YOU personally responsible for expenditures and property damages in the ensuing war and the enslavement of the human race! That should carry a fine of like, a zillion dollars! YOU DIRTY SPEEDING BASTARD YOU'VE HANDED EARTH RIGHT TO THE ZURBLAGS!!!
<br> <br>
Following the logic used in assessing damages here, that is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>speeding which can result in death should have a fine of $ 100,000 at the very least .
AT LEAST .
If you speed , you could subtly changing the flow of traffic , which could cause a schoolchild across town to be hit by a car , who could have grown up to be the future POTUS , who could have been the only leader brilliant enough to fend off a possible alien invasion , and that would make YOU personally responsible for expenditures and property damages in the ensuing war and the enslavement of the human race !
That should carry a fine of like , a zillion dollars !
YOU DIRTY SPEEDING BASTARD YOU 'VE HANDED EARTH RIGHT TO THE ZURBLAGS ! ! !
Following the logic used in assessing damages here , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>speeding which can result in death should have a fine of $100,000 at the very least.
AT LEAST.
If you speed, you could subtly changing the flow of traffic, which could cause a schoolchild across town to be hit by a car, who could have grown up to be the future POTUS, who could have been the only leader brilliant enough to fend off a possible alien invasion, and that would make YOU personally responsible for expenditures and property damages in the ensuing war and the enslavement of the human race!
That should carry a fine of like, a zillion dollars!
YOU DIRTY SPEEDING BASTARD YOU'VE HANDED EARTH RIGHT TO THE ZURBLAGS!!!
Following the logic used in assessing damages here, that is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30659314</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say "Sometimes an illegal act is the only counterweight that one can provide."</p><p>I've heard that argument before, that the ends justifies the means. Except that in this case there were/are legal ways to get your point of prices being too high, etc.. across to big music. DON'T BUY. That forces them to change their tactics, perhaps even offering music at a reduced price.</p><p>It always seems to be that people complain that the above will not work, because others will purchase the product at the big music price, so that they will not change. Well guess what...that means that they have set or are close to a sustainable business price. If the price is not sustainable, because of revenue does not exceed expenditures, then either the company will go out of business, or change their offering, perhaps to a reduced price.</p><p>People, you need to work for what you want. In this case work means going without what you want, and persuading others, starting websites, attending rallies, marching on the capital, to get what it is you desire. You know the legal, but time/energy consuming methods to get what you want. And guess what...in the end, after all that work, you may find that you still don't get what you desire, but that is life; you don't get everything you want.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say " Sometimes an illegal act is the only counterweight that one can provide .
" I 've heard that argument before , that the ends justifies the means .
Except that in this case there were/are legal ways to get your point of prices being too high , etc.. across to big music .
DO N'T BUY .
That forces them to change their tactics , perhaps even offering music at a reduced price.It always seems to be that people complain that the above will not work , because others will purchase the product at the big music price , so that they will not change .
Well guess what...that means that they have set or are close to a sustainable business price .
If the price is not sustainable , because of revenue does not exceed expenditures , then either the company will go out of business , or change their offering , perhaps to a reduced price.People , you need to work for what you want .
In this case work means going without what you want , and persuading others , starting websites , attending rallies , marching on the capital , to get what it is you desire .
You know the legal , but time/energy consuming methods to get what you want .
And guess what...in the end , after all that work , you may find that you still do n't get what you desire , but that is life ; you do n't get everything you want .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say "Sometimes an illegal act is the only counterweight that one can provide.
"I've heard that argument before, that the ends justifies the means.
Except that in this case there were/are legal ways to get your point of prices being too high, etc.. across to big music.
DON'T BUY.
That forces them to change their tactics, perhaps even offering music at a reduced price.It always seems to be that people complain that the above will not work, because others will purchase the product at the big music price, so that they will not change.
Well guess what...that means that they have set or are close to a sustainable business price.
If the price is not sustainable, because of revenue does not exceed expenditures, then either the company will go out of business, or change their offering, perhaps to a reduced price.People, you need to work for what you want.
In this case work means going without what you want, and persuading others, starting websites, attending rallies, marching on the capital, to get what it is you desire.
You know the legal, but time/energy consuming methods to get what you want.
And guess what...in the end, after all that work, you may find that you still don't get what you desire, but that is life; you don't get everything you want.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653366</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>bug1</author>
	<datestamp>1262694420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Copyrights exist so that creators of creative works can be given an incentive to create. Their creations, on the whole, enrich society. That's the basic copyright bargain</i></p><p>That might be the way it works on paper, but how do copyrights on computer software enrich society, i can keep my work excluded from society until 50 (to 100) years after i die, by which time the only hardware that will be capable of running it will be in a museum.</p><p>The media cartels need to be broken beyond repair so a new system can emerge, it is very unfortunate that societies leaders are more interested in promoting or preserving corporations than they are in human cultural.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyrights exist so that creators of creative works can be given an incentive to create .
Their creations , on the whole , enrich society .
That 's the basic copyright bargainThat might be the way it works on paper , but how do copyrights on computer software enrich society , i can keep my work excluded from society until 50 ( to 100 ) years after i die , by which time the only hardware that will be capable of running it will be in a museum.The media cartels need to be broken beyond repair so a new system can emerge , it is very unfortunate that societies leaders are more interested in promoting or preserving corporations than they are in human cultural .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyrights exist so that creators of creative works can be given an incentive to create.
Their creations, on the whole, enrich society.
That's the basic copyright bargainThat might be the way it works on paper, but how do copyrights on computer software enrich society, i can keep my work excluded from society until 50 (to 100) years after i die, by which time the only hardware that will be capable of running it will be in a museum.The media cartels need to be broken beyond repair so a new system can emerge, it is very unfortunate that societies leaders are more interested in promoting or preserving corporations than they are in human cultural.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30650790</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks slashdot</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1262622960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every time a defendant does anything in an RIAA trial, slashdot has to report it? <i>He's already sentenced</i>, it's over.</p></div><p>I think I see it a little differently.  I'm convinced the original trial was a thrown match, a deliberate loss to push the expectedly egregious damages award up the chain of appeal.  The higher the court, the stronger the precedent, no?</p><p>I'm not across your legal system, wouldn't know.  But if those sort of damages awards can be overturned, they should be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time a defendant does anything in an RIAA trial , slashdot has to report it ?
He 's already sentenced , it 's over.I think I see it a little differently .
I 'm convinced the original trial was a thrown match , a deliberate loss to push the expectedly egregious damages award up the chain of appeal .
The higher the court , the stronger the precedent , no ? I 'm not across your legal system , would n't know .
But if those sort of damages awards can be overturned , they should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time a defendant does anything in an RIAA trial, slashdot has to report it?
He's already sentenced, it's over.I think I see it a little differently.
I'm convinced the original trial was a thrown match, a deliberate loss to push the expectedly egregious damages award up the chain of appeal.
The higher the court, the stronger the precedent, no?I'm not across your legal system, wouldn't know.
But if those sort of damages awards can be overturned, they should be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653084</id>
	<title>The Solution</title>
	<author>Karem Lore</author>
	<datestamp>1262690700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God, the solution is simple...if you could get a large enough group of people to follow:</p><p>Stop buying music for a few months...<br>If the record companies don't get money in, they can't pay the RIAA which in turn can't pay the lawyers...</p><p>The whole stack of cards comes tumbling down and consumers make a bold choice in how we are treated.<br>The shops that sell CDs will fold, the online distribution channels will fail.</p><p>Once this is done, let the music moguls back in on OUR terms, not theirs!</p><p>This is consumerism, it is in our hand, but we don't do it...Why?  Because the majority of us are not affected by this (and I mean non-slashdotters by that) and getting them to agree to a boycott is like asking blood from a stone...A movement to trigger a music revolution is the only way this will change, although this is a socialist idea and most of the US/UK would rather shoot themselves first...</p><p>Karem</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God , the solution is simple...if you could get a large enough group of people to follow : Stop buying music for a few months...If the record companies do n't get money in , they ca n't pay the RIAA which in turn ca n't pay the lawyers...The whole stack of cards comes tumbling down and consumers make a bold choice in how we are treated.The shops that sell CDs will fold , the online distribution channels will fail.Once this is done , let the music moguls back in on OUR terms , not theirs ! This is consumerism , it is in our hand , but we do n't do it...Why ?
Because the majority of us are not affected by this ( and I mean non-slashdotters by that ) and getting them to agree to a boycott is like asking blood from a stone...A movement to trigger a music revolution is the only way this will change , although this is a socialist idea and most of the US/UK would rather shoot themselves first...Karem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God, the solution is simple...if you could get a large enough group of people to follow:Stop buying music for a few months...If the record companies don't get money in, they can't pay the RIAA which in turn can't pay the lawyers...The whole stack of cards comes tumbling down and consumers make a bold choice in how we are treated.The shops that sell CDs will fold, the online distribution channels will fail.Once this is done, let the music moguls back in on OUR terms, not theirs!This is consumerism, it is in our hand, but we don't do it...Why?
Because the majority of us are not affected by this (and I mean non-slashdotters by that) and getting them to agree to a boycott is like asking blood from a stone...A movement to trigger a music revolution is the only way this will change, although this is a socialist idea and most of the US/UK would rather shoot themselves first...Karem</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648416</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Point of order: He was not <i>sentenced</i> to anything, since this was not a criminal trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Point of order : He was not sentenced to anything , since this was not a criminal trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point of order: He was not sentenced to anything, since this was not a criminal trial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648284</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks slashdot</title>
	<author>GryMor</author>
	<datestamp>1262608860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the first I've seen of:</p><p>"II. AT TRIAL THE COURT ERRED BY PREJUDICIALLY REDACTING DEFENDANT&rsquo;S OFFER OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT HE WAS WILLING TO TAKE RESONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS, ALLOWING IT TO BE TWISTED INTO DEVASTATING IMPEACHMENT OF HIS CHARACTER."</p><p>and after seeing the original vs what was entered into evidence, it makes me want to redact a bunch of RIAA member company offers and then take them to small claims court for not following through with their promises.</p><p>In other words, some portion of the article is in fact news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the first I 've seen of : " II .
AT TRIAL THE COURT ERRED BY PREJUDICIALLY REDACTING DEFENDANT    S OFFER OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT HE WAS WILLING TO TAKE RESONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS , ALLOWING IT TO BE TWISTED INTO DEVASTATING IMPEACHMENT OF HIS CHARACTER .
" and after seeing the original vs what was entered into evidence , it makes me want to redact a bunch of RIAA member company offers and then take them to small claims court for not following through with their promises.In other words , some portion of the article is in fact news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the first I've seen of:"II.
AT TRIAL THE COURT ERRED BY PREJUDICIALLY REDACTING DEFENDANT’S OFFER OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT HE WAS WILLING TO TAKE RESONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS, ALLOWING IT TO BE TWISTED INTO DEVASTATING IMPEACHMENT OF HIS CHARACTER.
"and after seeing the original vs what was entered into evidence, it makes me want to redact a bunch of RIAA member company offers and then take them to small claims court for not following through with their promises.In other words, some portion of the article is in fact news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653004</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262689560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>We in the modern west have a problem, and I, for one, do not see an easy solution.</i> <br> <br>Actually the easy solution is treat copyright in the same way as horse powered mass transit...<br> <br> <i>It used to be that making copies of creative works was a physical task that was the domain of professionals. As such, enforcing copyrights was relatively easy.</i> <br> <br>Copyright came into existance when technology enabled copies to be meade cheaply if you wanted many copies.<br> <br> <i>Copyrights exist so that creators of creative works can be given an incentive to create. Their creations, on the whole, enrich society. That's the basic copyright bargain: You write good books and we, as a society, will insure that you can make a living doing it.</i> <br> <br>Actually the theory is more that <b>if&gt; </b> there is money to be made from a work the author should get it. It's by no means clear that the possibility of profit plays any great part in motivating people to be creative in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We in the modern west have a problem , and I , for one , do not see an easy solution .
Actually the easy solution is treat copyright in the same way as horse powered mass transit... It used to be that making copies of creative works was a physical task that was the domain of professionals .
As such , enforcing copyrights was relatively easy .
Copyright came into existance when technology enabled copies to be meade cheaply if you wanted many copies .
Copyrights exist so that creators of creative works can be given an incentive to create .
Their creations , on the whole , enrich society .
That 's the basic copyright bargain : You write good books and we , as a society , will insure that you can make a living doing it .
Actually the theory is more that if &gt; there is money to be made from a work the author should get it .
It 's by no means clear that the possibility of profit plays any great part in motivating people to be creative in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We in the modern west have a problem, and I, for one, do not see an easy solution.
Actually the easy solution is treat copyright in the same way as horse powered mass transit...  It used to be that making copies of creative works was a physical task that was the domain of professionals.
As such, enforcing copyrights was relatively easy.
Copyright came into existance when technology enabled copies to be meade cheaply if you wanted many copies.
Copyrights exist so that creators of creative works can be given an incentive to create.
Their creations, on the whole, enrich society.
That's the basic copyright bargain: You write good books and we, as a society, will insure that you can make a living doing it.
Actually the theory is more that if&gt;  there is money to be made from a work the author should get it.
It's by no means clear that the possibility of profit plays any great part in motivating people to be creative in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648484</id>
	<title>Re:singles sell for 99 cents to $1.50.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that's the damages, folks.</p></div><p>So, you buy a song on iTunes for 99 cents. You think you just bought a license for unlimited distribution, even though the copyright owner expressly refused to sell you one at that price? Why don't you believe in the freedom of contract and the free market?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's the damages , folks.So , you buy a song on iTunes for 99 cents .
You think you just bought a license for unlimited distribution , even though the copyright owner expressly refused to sell you one at that price ?
Why do n't you believe in the freedom of contract and the free market ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's the damages, folks.So, you buy a song on iTunes for 99 cents.
You think you just bought a license for unlimited distribution, even though the copyright owner expressly refused to sell you one at that price?
Why don't you believe in the freedom of contract and the free market?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651206</id>
	<title>It's not about copying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262626380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The fundamental problem here is not that of copying, but the matter of justice in proportion to the crime.
</p><p>
Suppose, for example, we take the RIAA's argument at face value: Because she's shared these 19 songs, the RIAA companies will <i>never</i> make another sale from them.  According to the RIAA, she owes them for the lost profits they would have made.
</p><p>
Even were this the case, the maximum cost of these 19 songs is the cost the RIAA paid to the artists to produce them.  Here's a hint: it's not very much.  Elton John once said that he could write a song in 15 minutes; even were he to charge a lawyerly-like rate of $500/hour, that would only be a few thousand dollars of labor.  Even at the extreme end, this is two band-years worth of labor, which hardly costs the label a few million dollars.
</p><p>
In terms of actual damages, she probably resulted in no lost sales.  Even before filesharing, I grew up in an environment where people simply taped songs off the radio, and bought the occasional LP.  The type of people downloading from filesharing networks are the kind who wouldn't have bought the song no matter how much they like it.  What the RIAA doesn't understand is that with the exception of the upper-middle and upper classes, most of America has become accustomed to getting their music for free, without paying a dime.  If they can't get it for free, <b>they just do without</b>.  It is <i>almost never</i> a lost sale.
</p><p>
What disturbs me most is that a jury could be convinced to grant a judgement of a few million dollars against her without any actual proof of infringement.  They have no idea how many - if any - downloads actually occurred.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental problem here is not that of copying , but the matter of justice in proportion to the crime .
Suppose , for example , we take the RIAA 's argument at face value : Because she 's shared these 19 songs , the RIAA companies will never make another sale from them .
According to the RIAA , she owes them for the lost profits they would have made .
Even were this the case , the maximum cost of these 19 songs is the cost the RIAA paid to the artists to produce them .
Here 's a hint : it 's not very much .
Elton John once said that he could write a song in 15 minutes ; even were he to charge a lawyerly-like rate of $ 500/hour , that would only be a few thousand dollars of labor .
Even at the extreme end , this is two band-years worth of labor , which hardly costs the label a few million dollars .
In terms of actual damages , she probably resulted in no lost sales .
Even before filesharing , I grew up in an environment where people simply taped songs off the radio , and bought the occasional LP .
The type of people downloading from filesharing networks are the kind who would n't have bought the song no matter how much they like it .
What the RIAA does n't understand is that with the exception of the upper-middle and upper classes , most of America has become accustomed to getting their music for free , without paying a dime .
If they ca n't get it for free , they just do without .
It is almost never a lost sale .
What disturbs me most is that a jury could be convinced to grant a judgement of a few million dollars against her without any actual proof of infringement .
They have no idea how many - if any - downloads actually occurred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The fundamental problem here is not that of copying, but the matter of justice in proportion to the crime.
Suppose, for example, we take the RIAA's argument at face value: Because she's shared these 19 songs, the RIAA companies will never make another sale from them.
According to the RIAA, she owes them for the lost profits they would have made.
Even were this the case, the maximum cost of these 19 songs is the cost the RIAA paid to the artists to produce them.
Here's a hint: it's not very much.
Elton John once said that he could write a song in 15 minutes; even were he to charge a lawyerly-like rate of $500/hour, that would only be a few thousand dollars of labor.
Even at the extreme end, this is two band-years worth of labor, which hardly costs the label a few million dollars.
In terms of actual damages, she probably resulted in no lost sales.
Even before filesharing, I grew up in an environment where people simply taped songs off the radio, and bought the occasional LP.
The type of people downloading from filesharing networks are the kind who wouldn't have bought the song no matter how much they like it.
What the RIAA doesn't understand is that with the exception of the upper-middle and upper classes, most of America has become accustomed to getting their music for free, without paying a dime.
If they can't get it for free, they just do without.
It is almost never a lost sale.
What disturbs me most is that a jury could be convinced to grant a judgement of a few million dollars against her without any actual proof of infringement.
They have no idea how many - if any - downloads actually occurred.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30655120</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks slashdot</title>
	<author>revlayle</author>
	<datestamp>1262708460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe this report is about someone motioning for a new trial over the constitutionality of the damages</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this report is about someone motioning for a new trial over the constitutionality of the damages</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this report is about someone motioning for a new trial over the constitutionality of the damages</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653144</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck on that one</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1262691720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And let's not forget "well regulated".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And let 's not forget " well regulated " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And let's not forget "well regulated".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647982</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck on that one</title>
	<author>sunderland56</author>
	<datestamp>1262607240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These are a bunch of guys who have a hard time understanding "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed"</p></div><p>
Say what? The RIAA may be evil, but I don't think they are trying to either enforce a religion or restrict your access to guns.
<br> <br>
Well, not yet, anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are a bunch of guys who have a hard time understanding " shall make no law " and " shall not be infringed " Say what ?
The RIAA may be evil , but I do n't think they are trying to either enforce a religion or restrict your access to guns .
Well , not yet , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are a bunch of guys who have a hard time understanding "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed"
Say what?
The RIAA may be evil, but I don't think they are trying to either enforce a religion or restrict your access to guns.
Well, not yet, anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648868</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1262611320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>they should pay the recording industry for their work</p></div></blockquote><p>In a digital age, exactly <i>what</i> is the work of the "recording industry"?</p><p>It should be re-named the "collection industry" because all they do is collect money from the work of others.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they should pay the recording industry for their workIn a digital age , exactly what is the work of the " recording industry " ? It should be re-named the " collection industry " because all they do is collect money from the work of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they should pay the recording industry for their workIn a digital age, exactly what is the work of the "recording industry"?It should be re-named the "collection industry" because all they do is collect money from the work of others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647892</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262606820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Grow up and pay the $675,000 fine for sharing 30 songs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Grow up and pay the $ 675,000 fine for sharing 30 songs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grow up and pay the $675,000 fine for sharing 30 songs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30658648</id>
	<title>Re:Argument != Ruling</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1262721120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ehh, it seems you didn't ready the summary. Nobody is arguing if he shared or not musics, the argument is about the amount of the fines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ehh , it seems you did n't ready the summary .
Nobody is arguing if he shared or not musics , the argument is about the amount of the fines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ehh, it seems you didn't ready the summary.
Nobody is arguing if he shared or not musics, the argument is about the amount of the fines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648956</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck on that one</title>
	<author>wintermute1974</author>
	<datestamp>1262611680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anyone is truly interested in this, then they should google "Billion Dollar Charlie" who is the MIT Professor running the show here.</p><p>Also, there's a good interview on the Podcast "Search Engine" with Charles.  You're clever enough.  I'll let you find it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone is truly interested in this , then they should google " Billion Dollar Charlie " who is the MIT Professor running the show here.Also , there 's a good interview on the Podcast " Search Engine " with Charles .
You 're clever enough .
I 'll let you find it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone is truly interested in this, then they should google "Billion Dollar Charlie" who is the MIT Professor running the show here.Also, there's a good interview on the Podcast "Search Engine" with Charles.
You're clever enough.
I'll let you find it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651448</id>
	<title>Re: And y'all believe this is gonna stop piracy?</title>
	<author>JNSL</author>
	<datestamp>1262628720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>To the artist? Probably not - but it should go to the artist. </i> <br> <br>

There is something huge to be said about 1) having the institutional power to produce and release a product widely; and 2) the risk taken during production. The risk is not with the artist, but those bankrolling the artist.<br> <br>

You've narrowed the focus to support your point, but dismissed important elements that are incredibly relevant, undermining how far you chose to narrow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To the artist ?
Probably not - but it should go to the artist .
There is something huge to be said about 1 ) having the institutional power to produce and release a product widely ; and 2 ) the risk taken during production .
The risk is not with the artist , but those bankrolling the artist .
You 've narrowed the focus to support your point , but dismissed important elements that are incredibly relevant , undermining how far you chose to narrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the artist?
Probably not - but it should go to the artist.
There is something huge to be said about 1) having the institutional power to produce and release a product widely; and 2) the risk taken during production.
The risk is not with the artist, but those bankrolling the artist.
You've narrowed the focus to support your point, but dismissed important elements that are incredibly relevant, undermining how far you chose to narrow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30650342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648072</id>
	<title>If the fees are high to discourage people...</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262607720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't the fine for everything be exceptionally high?
<br> <br>
Seriously if downloading one song can have you paying out, for example, $10,000 then surely speeding which can result in death should have a fine of $100,000 at the very least.
<br> <br>
If the government won't do that because it's ridiculous then I want to know why it's not ridiculous that I can be paying that much for downloading a few songs which are, at best, worth $0.99 each.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the fine for everything be exceptionally high ?
Seriously if downloading one song can have you paying out , for example , $ 10,000 then surely speeding which can result in death should have a fine of $ 100,000 at the very least .
If the government wo n't do that because it 's ridiculous then I want to know why it 's not ridiculous that I can be paying that much for downloading a few songs which are , at best , worth $ 0.99 each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the fine for everything be exceptionally high?
Seriously if downloading one song can have you paying out, for example, $10,000 then surely speeding which can result in death should have a fine of $100,000 at the very least.
If the government won't do that because it's ridiculous then I want to know why it's not ridiculous that I can be paying that much for downloading a few songs which are, at best, worth $0.99 each.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647878</id>
	<title>How is this news?</title>
	<author>PhxBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1262606760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad that the Slashdot editors are adamently in support of something that IMO needs to be supported, but how is filing a motion newsworthy in any way? Now, if the court agrees to the motion, that'd be different<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wake me up then.  Otherwise, let people publish this sort of "news" to PRNewsWire and their ilk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad that the Slashdot editors are adamently in support of something that IMO needs to be supported , but how is filing a motion newsworthy in any way ?
Now , if the court agrees to the motion , that 'd be different ... wake me up then .
Otherwise , let people publish this sort of " news " to PRNewsWire and their ilk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad that the Slashdot editors are adamently in support of something that IMO needs to be supported, but how is filing a motion newsworthy in any way?
Now, if the court agrees to the motion, that'd be different ... wake me up then.
Otherwise, let people publish this sort of "news" to PRNewsWire and their ilk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647808</id>
	<title>Good luck on that one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262606400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>These are a bunch of guys who have a hard time understanding "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed"</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are a bunch of guys who have a hard time understanding " shall make no law " and " shall not be infringed "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are a bunch of guys who have a hard time understanding "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648634</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1262610360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not the fact that a 'pirate' got punished that is at issue here, it's the fact that the penalty is so large it will probably push the defendant into bankruptcy; it is a penalty significantly larger than the damages suffered by the record companies, and perhaps most importantly, it is a penalty that was designed to punish an entirely different class of pirates (commercial pirates who manufacture and widely distribute copies of music for a nice profit. In that case the profit motive is large, so the deterring punishment should also be large).</p></div><p>Partially yes, and partially no.  First, it's not necessarily "significantly larger" than the damages suffered by the record companies, because the damages weren't just 99 cents per track - maybe for his downloading, which infringed the right to copy, but not for his uploading, which infringed the right to distribute. 99 cents on iTunes doesn't buy you a license for unlimited duplication distribution, and no one can seriously argue it does.</p><p>
That said, as you note, the damages were significantly larger than the RIAA should have gotten, because the jury didn't have a proper instruction on the definition of willfulness - which is required for the $150k limit. But, it's not just commercial pirates who are working for profit - Tenenbaum tried that argument, but it had no support in case law or the statute, even if it appeals to our sense of justice.</p><p>
Rather, the true definition of willfulness is that the infringer acted maliciously or with fraudulent intent. This <i>does</i> cover the commercial pirates, but it <i>also</i> covers the malicious monopolist who willingly forgoes profit in order to crush his competition by widely distributing their copyrighted works.  It also protects for-profit infringers who weren't malicious or fraudulent, but had a reasonable belief that their infringement was protected by fair use.  The "commercial for profit" definition would reverse these last two - punish the well-meaning-but-wrong commercial infringer, and protect the Snidely Whiplash-mustache-twirler evildoer.</p><p>
There's also support for the "malicious or with fraudulent intent" definition through the history of the copyright act, as well as the federal patent and trademark acts.</p><p>
Basically, Tenenbaum should have faced $750-30k per song, not $750-150k per song.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the fact that a 'pirate ' got punished that is at issue here , it 's the fact that the penalty is so large it will probably push the defendant into bankruptcy ; it is a penalty significantly larger than the damages suffered by the record companies , and perhaps most importantly , it is a penalty that was designed to punish an entirely different class of pirates ( commercial pirates who manufacture and widely distribute copies of music for a nice profit .
In that case the profit motive is large , so the deterring punishment should also be large ) .Partially yes , and partially no .
First , it 's not necessarily " significantly larger " than the damages suffered by the record companies , because the damages were n't just 99 cents per track - maybe for his downloading , which infringed the right to copy , but not for his uploading , which infringed the right to distribute .
99 cents on iTunes does n't buy you a license for unlimited duplication distribution , and no one can seriously argue it does .
That said , as you note , the damages were significantly larger than the RIAA should have gotten , because the jury did n't have a proper instruction on the definition of willfulness - which is required for the $ 150k limit .
But , it 's not just commercial pirates who are working for profit - Tenenbaum tried that argument , but it had no support in case law or the statute , even if it appeals to our sense of justice .
Rather , the true definition of willfulness is that the infringer acted maliciously or with fraudulent intent .
This does cover the commercial pirates , but it also covers the malicious monopolist who willingly forgoes profit in order to crush his competition by widely distributing their copyrighted works .
It also protects for-profit infringers who were n't malicious or fraudulent , but had a reasonable belief that their infringement was protected by fair use .
The " commercial for profit " definition would reverse these last two - punish the well-meaning-but-wrong commercial infringer , and protect the Snidely Whiplash-mustache-twirler evildoer .
There 's also support for the " malicious or with fraudulent intent " definition through the history of the copyright act , as well as the federal patent and trademark acts .
Basically , Tenenbaum should have faced $ 750-30k per song , not $ 750-150k per song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the fact that a 'pirate' got punished that is at issue here, it's the fact that the penalty is so large it will probably push the defendant into bankruptcy; it is a penalty significantly larger than the damages suffered by the record companies, and perhaps most importantly, it is a penalty that was designed to punish an entirely different class of pirates (commercial pirates who manufacture and widely distribute copies of music for a nice profit.
In that case the profit motive is large, so the deterring punishment should also be large).Partially yes, and partially no.
First, it's not necessarily "significantly larger" than the damages suffered by the record companies, because the damages weren't just 99 cents per track - maybe for his downloading, which infringed the right to copy, but not for his uploading, which infringed the right to distribute.
99 cents on iTunes doesn't buy you a license for unlimited duplication distribution, and no one can seriously argue it does.
That said, as you note, the damages were significantly larger than the RIAA should have gotten, because the jury didn't have a proper instruction on the definition of willfulness - which is required for the $150k limit.
But, it's not just commercial pirates who are working for profit - Tenenbaum tried that argument, but it had no support in case law or the statute, even if it appeals to our sense of justice.
Rather, the true definition of willfulness is that the infringer acted maliciously or with fraudulent intent.
This does cover the commercial pirates, but it also covers the malicious monopolist who willingly forgoes profit in order to crush his competition by widely distributing their copyrighted works.
It also protects for-profit infringers who weren't malicious or fraudulent, but had a reasonable belief that their infringement was protected by fair use.
The "commercial for profit" definition would reverse these last two - punish the well-meaning-but-wrong commercial infringer, and protect the Snidely Whiplash-mustache-twirler evildoer.
There's also support for the "malicious or with fraudulent intent" definition through the history of the copyright act, as well as the federal patent and trademark acts.
Basically, Tenenbaum should have faced $750-30k per song, not $750-150k per song.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653110</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262691120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you can find a work around if you live under Common Law jurisdiction, instead of Admiralty/Marine Law jurisdiction like almost everyone does. Surprisingly it does matter if your name is written with capital letters or not... and law sometimes defines words differently than you'd expect.</p><p>Search the video: choosing freedom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you can find a work around if you live under Common Law jurisdiction , instead of Admiralty/Marine Law jurisdiction like almost everyone does .
Surprisingly it does matter if your name is written with capital letters or not... and law sometimes defines words differently than you 'd expect.Search the video : choosing freedom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you can find a work around if you live under Common Law jurisdiction, instead of Admiralty/Marine Law jurisdiction like almost everyone does.
Surprisingly it does matter if your name is written with capital letters or not... and law sometimes defines words differently than you'd expect.Search the video: choosing freedom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648384</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1262609280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last I heard a punishment was supposed to hurt.  But it should also fit the crime.  Just because it bankrupts someone doesn't mean it was too big.  Right now a $5000 fine could bankrupt me, so the actual size doesn't really matter that much.  But yeah when you wiggle on the hook enough it makes the punishment that much harder to take I guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I heard a punishment was supposed to hurt .
But it should also fit the crime .
Just because it bankrupts someone does n't mean it was too big .
Right now a $ 5000 fine could bankrupt me , so the actual size does n't really matter that much .
But yeah when you wiggle on the hook enough it makes the punishment that much harder to take I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I heard a punishment was supposed to hurt.
But it should also fit the crime.
Just because it bankrupts someone doesn't mean it was too big.
Right now a $5000 fine could bankrupt me, so the actual size doesn't really matter that much.
But yeah when you wiggle on the hook enough it makes the punishment that much harder to take I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648866</id>
	<title>Why are so many lawyers so stupid</title>
	<author>rudy\_wayne</author>
	<datestamp>1262611320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"defendant has filed a motion for new trial, attacking, among other things, the constitutionality of the jury's $675,000 award"</p><p>Yeah.  Good luck with that.</p><p>Just like Jammie Thomas before him, Mr. Tenebaum decided to admit that he broke the law and fight a battle based on the the idea that the law is wrong.  We saw how well that worked out for both of them.  Now, I happen to agree that the law is wrong and that the actual damages suffered by the entire record indusry as a result of "file sharing" is close to zero.  However, the chances of convincing the courts that the law is wrong is also somewhere between none and zero.</p><p>Ms Thomas, Mr. Tenebaum and their respective attorneys suffer from the same problem.  They thought they were going to out-smart the prosecution.  Dazzle them with their brilliance and logic.  Hit them with a constutional argument that can't be rebutted.  And they ran smack into the brick wall of reality.</p><p>The sad unfortunate reality is that judges and juries are technologically illiterate.  They are easily swayed by words such as "hacker" and "piracy", easily convinced that anyone using a computer may be up to no good and  and they are easily convinced that the fine honest upstanding folks of the RIAA are being robbed by evil file-sharers.</p><p>It is unfortunate, but the only defense for these cases is DENY DENY DENY.  Admit nothing.  Deny everything.  The RIAA is in error.  The information provided by the ISP is wrong or forged by the RIAA.  Force them to provide concrete proof of everything.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is meaningless if you freely admit that you did exactly that they say you did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" defendant has filed a motion for new trial , attacking , among other things , the constitutionality of the jury 's $ 675,000 award " Yeah .
Good luck with that.Just like Jammie Thomas before him , Mr. Tenebaum decided to admit that he broke the law and fight a battle based on the the idea that the law is wrong .
We saw how well that worked out for both of them .
Now , I happen to agree that the law is wrong and that the actual damages suffered by the entire record indusry as a result of " file sharing " is close to zero .
However , the chances of convincing the courts that the law is wrong is also somewhere between none and zero.Ms Thomas , Mr. Tenebaum and their respective attorneys suffer from the same problem .
They thought they were going to out-smart the prosecution .
Dazzle them with their brilliance and logic .
Hit them with a constutional argument that ca n't be rebutted .
And they ran smack into the brick wall of reality.The sad unfortunate reality is that judges and juries are technologically illiterate .
They are easily swayed by words such as " hacker " and " piracy " , easily convinced that anyone using a computer may be up to no good and and they are easily convinced that the fine honest upstanding folks of the RIAA are being robbed by evil file-sharers.It is unfortunate , but the only defense for these cases is DENY DENY DENY .
Admit nothing .
Deny everything .
The RIAA is in error .
The information provided by the ISP is wrong or forged by the RIAA .
Force them to provide concrete proof of everything .
" Innocent until proven guilty " is meaningless if you freely admit that you did exactly that they say you did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"defendant has filed a motion for new trial, attacking, among other things, the constitutionality of the jury's $675,000 award"Yeah.
Good luck with that.Just like Jammie Thomas before him, Mr. Tenebaum decided to admit that he broke the law and fight a battle based on the the idea that the law is wrong.
We saw how well that worked out for both of them.
Now, I happen to agree that the law is wrong and that the actual damages suffered by the entire record indusry as a result of "file sharing" is close to zero.
However, the chances of convincing the courts that the law is wrong is also somewhere between none and zero.Ms Thomas, Mr. Tenebaum and their respective attorneys suffer from the same problem.
They thought they were going to out-smart the prosecution.
Dazzle them with their brilliance and logic.
Hit them with a constutional argument that can't be rebutted.
And they ran smack into the brick wall of reality.The sad unfortunate reality is that judges and juries are technologically illiterate.
They are easily swayed by words such as "hacker" and "piracy", easily convinced that anyone using a computer may be up to no good and  and they are easily convinced that the fine honest upstanding folks of the RIAA are being robbed by evil file-sharers.It is unfortunate, but the only defense for these cases is DENY DENY DENY.
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
The RIAA is in error.
The information provided by the ISP is wrong or forged by the RIAA.
Force them to provide concrete proof of everything.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is meaningless if you freely admit that you did exactly that they say you did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30654142</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1262703540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So long as the public interest is maximally satisfied, why should our copyright policy care whether authors live comfortably or shiver in garrets?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
You are a small-minded turd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So long as the public interest is maximally satisfied , why should our copyright policy care whether authors live comfortably or shiver in garrets ?
You are a small-minded turd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long as the public interest is maximally satisfied, why should our copyright policy care whether authors live comfortably or shiver in garrets?
You are a small-minded turd.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647858</id>
	<title>Thanks slashdot</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1262606700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time a defendant does anything in an RIAA trial, slashdot has to report it? He's <i>already sentenced</i>, it's over. This is just more general bleating about how unfair the award is. There's no reason Tenenbaum would get special treatment.. high damages paid to the RIAA have already held up in court and been denied further appeal..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time a defendant does anything in an RIAA trial , slashdot has to report it ?
He 's already sentenced , it 's over .
This is just more general bleating about how unfair the award is .
There 's no reason Tenenbaum would get special treatment.. high damages paid to the RIAA have already held up in court and been denied further appeal. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time a defendant does anything in an RIAA trial, slashdot has to report it?
He's already sentenced, it's over.
This is just more general bleating about how unfair the award is.
There's no reason Tenenbaum would get special treatment.. high damages paid to the RIAA have already held up in court and been denied further appeal..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30657034</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262715300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I, for one, do not see an easy solution.<br></i></p><p>I do. Copyright was started to protect authors from publishers. Cory Doctorow (for one) has shown that you can give your work away for free and still make the NYT best seller list.</p><p>Book publishers don't sell novels, they sell books. Music publishers don't sell songs, they sell CDs. Movie producers don't sell movies, they rent seats in the theater and sell DVDs.</p><p>Yes, there are many folks out there who don't want physical copies, and that's fine. Many readers don't want to own copies of books and check them out from the library and that's fine, too.</p><p>Would you protect the buggy whip manufacturers just because the automobile has made their business plan obsolete? Writers will write, singers will sing, painters will paint. The "content industries" have moaned and cried with every technological innovation, piano rolls would kill the music indusrtry, then records, then radio, then cassettes, then the internet. TV was going to kill the movie industry, then VCRs, now the internet.</p><p>There's a clear pattern here. The industries will survive. If they don't, then society obviously doesn't need them. Artists and writers with brains embrace the GPL model. Nobody is going to stop writing because of the internet; indeed, it gives them a wider audience, and there are still a hell of a lot of people who want physical media.</p><p>Lagalize sharing! I can share my dead tree book, why can't I share my ebook?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , do not see an easy solution.I do .
Copyright was started to protect authors from publishers .
Cory Doctorow ( for one ) has shown that you can give your work away for free and still make the NYT best seller list.Book publishers do n't sell novels , they sell books .
Music publishers do n't sell songs , they sell CDs .
Movie producers do n't sell movies , they rent seats in the theater and sell DVDs.Yes , there are many folks out there who do n't want physical copies , and that 's fine .
Many readers do n't want to own copies of books and check them out from the library and that 's fine , too.Would you protect the buggy whip manufacturers just because the automobile has made their business plan obsolete ?
Writers will write , singers will sing , painters will paint .
The " content industries " have moaned and cried with every technological innovation , piano rolls would kill the music indusrtry , then records , then radio , then cassettes , then the internet .
TV was going to kill the movie industry , then VCRs , now the internet.There 's a clear pattern here .
The industries will survive .
If they do n't , then society obviously does n't need them .
Artists and writers with brains embrace the GPL model .
Nobody is going to stop writing because of the internet ; indeed , it gives them a wider audience , and there are still a hell of a lot of people who want physical media.Lagalize sharing !
I can share my dead tree book , why ca n't I share my ebook ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, do not see an easy solution.I do.
Copyright was started to protect authors from publishers.
Cory Doctorow (for one) has shown that you can give your work away for free and still make the NYT best seller list.Book publishers don't sell novels, they sell books.
Music publishers don't sell songs, they sell CDs.
Movie producers don't sell movies, they rent seats in the theater and sell DVDs.Yes, there are many folks out there who don't want physical copies, and that's fine.
Many readers don't want to own copies of books and check them out from the library and that's fine, too.Would you protect the buggy whip manufacturers just because the automobile has made their business plan obsolete?
Writers will write, singers will sing, painters will paint.
The "content industries" have moaned and cried with every technological innovation, piano rolls would kill the music indusrtry, then records, then radio, then cassettes, then the internet.
TV was going to kill the movie industry, then VCRs, now the internet.There's a clear pattern here.
The industries will survive.
If they don't, then society obviously doesn't need them.
Artists and writers with brains embrace the GPL model.
Nobody is going to stop writing because of the internet; indeed, it gives them a wider audience, and there are still a hell of a lot of people who want physical media.Lagalize sharing!
I can share my dead tree book, why can't I share my ebook?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649078</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262612160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because people who create music shouldn't be rewarded? I think you fundamentally misunderstand progress...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because people who create music should n't be rewarded ?
I think you fundamentally misunderstand progress.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because people who create music shouldn't be rewarded?
I think you fundamentally misunderstand progress...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30652874</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1262687820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely whether or not the fines are cruel and unusual or excessive (etc) is subjective opinion?  Any punishment past a slap on the wrist and a telling off may be cruel and unusual or excessive to the defendant and their family...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely whether or not the fines are cruel and unusual or excessive ( etc ) is subjective opinion ?
Any punishment past a slap on the wrist and a telling off may be cruel and unusual or excessive to the defendant and their family.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely whether or not the fines are cruel and unusual or excessive (etc) is subjective opinion?
Any punishment past a slap on the wrist and a telling off may be cruel and unusual or excessive to the defendant and their family...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647952</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262607000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well 750k is kind of a lot. The whole 'making available to lots of people' isn't really premeditated anymore (like it was before the internet) so completely ruining someone isn't the right answer. Though I hope you sleep well at night, knowing YOUR MUSIC WONT WORK IN xx YEARS HAH.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well 750k is kind of a lot .
The whole 'making available to lots of people ' is n't really premeditated anymore ( like it was before the internet ) so completely ruining someone is n't the right answer .
Though I hope you sleep well at night , knowing YOUR MUSIC WONT WORK IN xx YEARS HAH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well 750k is kind of a lot.
The whole 'making available to lots of people' isn't really premeditated anymore (like it was before the internet) so completely ruining someone isn't the right answer.
Though I hope you sleep well at night, knowing YOUR MUSIC WONT WORK IN xx YEARS HAH.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649320</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1262613360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A good recording engineer makes all the difference in the world. I suggest <a href="http://www.tweakheadz.com/guide.htm" title="tweakheadz.com">looking here</a> [tweakheadz.com] if you want to get an idea of the work involved.  Usually professionally it involves a team of people.  A lot of the new 'sound' created by new groups is in fact created by recording engineers, not by the artists themselves.<br> <br>
A lot of singers can't actually write music very well.  Doing a good counterpoint melody or even just not making your song sound bad takes years of experience, so a lot of times the artists will write the melody and lyrics, then they will outsource the harmony (and lyric/melody cleanup) to a group like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Matrix\_(record\_production\_team)" title="wikipedia.org">The Matrix</a> [wikipedia.org] (ok, in reality it's more complicated than that, but it kind of gives you an idea of what they do).<br> <br>
Then there are things like music video production, arranging tours, publicity appearances, and of course collecting money from music sales, as you mentioned.  Most artists have no clue how to promote themselves personally, which is part of the reason most end up working with labels.<br> <br>
All of these things <i>could</i> be done by the artist, but they take a lot of experience and time to learn how to do well, and if the artist wants to enlist (and pay) the recording industry to help, that is their choice.  I am paying 99 cents either way, so I'll let them decide if it is worth it to them or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A good recording engineer makes all the difference in the world .
I suggest looking here [ tweakheadz.com ] if you want to get an idea of the work involved .
Usually professionally it involves a team of people .
A lot of the new 'sound ' created by new groups is in fact created by recording engineers , not by the artists themselves .
A lot of singers ca n't actually write music very well .
Doing a good counterpoint melody or even just not making your song sound bad takes years of experience , so a lot of times the artists will write the melody and lyrics , then they will outsource the harmony ( and lyric/melody cleanup ) to a group like The Matrix [ wikipedia.org ] ( ok , in reality it 's more complicated than that , but it kind of gives you an idea of what they do ) .
Then there are things like music video production , arranging tours , publicity appearances , and of course collecting money from music sales , as you mentioned .
Most artists have no clue how to promote themselves personally , which is part of the reason most end up working with labels .
All of these things could be done by the artist , but they take a lot of experience and time to learn how to do well , and if the artist wants to enlist ( and pay ) the recording industry to help , that is their choice .
I am paying 99 cents either way , so I 'll let them decide if it is worth it to them or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good recording engineer makes all the difference in the world.
I suggest looking here [tweakheadz.com] if you want to get an idea of the work involved.
Usually professionally it involves a team of people.
A lot of the new 'sound' created by new groups is in fact created by recording engineers, not by the artists themselves.
A lot of singers can't actually write music very well.
Doing a good counterpoint melody or even just not making your song sound bad takes years of experience, so a lot of times the artists will write the melody and lyrics, then they will outsource the harmony (and lyric/melody cleanup) to a group like The Matrix [wikipedia.org] (ok, in reality it's more complicated than that, but it kind of gives you an idea of what they do).
Then there are things like music video production, arranging tours, publicity appearances, and of course collecting money from music sales, as you mentioned.
Most artists have no clue how to promote themselves personally, which is part of the reason most end up working with labels.
All of these things could be done by the artist, but they take a lot of experience and time to learn how to do well, and if the artist wants to enlist (and pay) the recording industry to help, that is their choice.
I am paying 99 cents either way, so I'll let them decide if it is worth it to them or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648234</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>Delwin</author>
	<datestamp>1262608620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that punitive damages is one of the select few things you cannot get rid of in bankruptcy.  that means that unless this person is well above the median income they will never pay this off in their lifetime and no matter how good a job they get they will be living in poverty for the rest of their life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that punitive damages is one of the select few things you can not get rid of in bankruptcy .
that means that unless this person is well above the median income they will never pay this off in their lifetime and no matter how good a job they get they will be living in poverty for the rest of their life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that punitive damages is one of the select few things you cannot get rid of in bankruptcy.
that means that unless this person is well above the median income they will never pay this off in their lifetime and no matter how good a job they get they will be living in poverty for the rest of their life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830</id>
	<title>still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262606520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Life is so easy for those people like me who go to itunes and pay a huge scary 99 cents when we buy a song we like.<br>I have fuck all sympathy for those who not only pirate music instead, but when they get caught red handed they act like they are being persecuted.</p><p>grow up and pay the fine when you get caught for actually knowingly breaking the law. How about that for a radical idea?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Life is so easy for those people like me who go to itunes and pay a huge scary 99 cents when we buy a song we like.I have fuck all sympathy for those who not only pirate music instead , but when they get caught red handed they act like they are being persecuted.grow up and pay the fine when you get caught for actually knowingly breaking the law .
How about that for a radical idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Life is so easy for those people like me who go to itunes and pay a huge scary 99 cents when we buy a song we like.I have fuck all sympathy for those who not only pirate music instead, but when they get caught red handed they act like they are being persecuted.grow up and pay the fine when you get caught for actually knowingly breaking the law.
How about that for a radical idea?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648070</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1262607720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the punishment for breaking the law is unconstitutional (cruel and unusual, excessive fines, etc) then no, you shouldn't just deal with it.  In fact, levying such fines is illegal, and those pushing for them should grow up and deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the punishment for breaking the law is unconstitutional ( cruel and unusual , excessive fines , etc ) then no , you should n't just deal with it .
In fact , levying such fines is illegal , and those pushing for them should grow up and deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the punishment for breaking the law is unconstitutional (cruel and unusual, excessive fines, etc) then no, you shouldn't just deal with it.
In fact, levying such fines is illegal, and those pushing for them should grow up and deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647876</id>
	<title>What's the legal limit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262606760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd read somewhere that is was capped at $30k per copyright infringement, $150k for distribution of same.</p><p>I should think that, if true, the caps are there for rationality and that they're high to discourage infringement - but should never be used as analogous to a sentencing guideline.</p><p>Ray, I get the beef (from reading your info) about the judge being wrong in taking the defendant's statement of liability into account - but further, was it right to suggest those limits to the jury, in any case?</p><p>Thanks in advance for answering (and only if my question makes sense or is worthy).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd read somewhere that is was capped at $ 30k per copyright infringement , $ 150k for distribution of same.I should think that , if true , the caps are there for rationality and that they 're high to discourage infringement - but should never be used as analogous to a sentencing guideline.Ray , I get the beef ( from reading your info ) about the judge being wrong in taking the defendant 's statement of liability into account - but further , was it right to suggest those limits to the jury , in any case ? Thanks in advance for answering ( and only if my question makes sense or is worthy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd read somewhere that is was capped at $30k per copyright infringement, $150k for distribution of same.I should think that, if true, the caps are there for rationality and that they're high to discourage infringement - but should never be used as analogous to a sentencing guideline.Ray, I get the beef (from reading your info) about the judge being wrong in taking the defendant's statement of liability into account - but further, was it right to suggest those limits to the jury, in any case?Thanks in advance for answering (and only if my question makes sense or is worthy).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648084</id>
	<title>Re:What's the legal limit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262607840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to 17 U.S.C. 504 (<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504" title="copyright.gov">http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html</a> [copyright.gov]), the minimum is $750 per work infringed while $30,000 is the max.  However, if the infringement is <strong>willfully</strong> committed it jumps to $150,000 but if the infringement is committed "innocently" (naively might be a better word) then it drops to $200.<br> <br> What is really neat is the presumption of willfullness under section 3 when the violator "knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement."</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to 17 U.S.C .
504 ( http : //www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html [ copyright.gov ] ) , the minimum is $ 750 per work infringed while $ 30,000 is the max .
However , if the infringement is willfully committed it jumps to $ 150,000 but if the infringement is committed " innocently " ( naively might be a better word ) then it drops to $ 200 .
What is really neat is the presumption of willfullness under section 3 when the violator " knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar , domain name registry , or other domain name registration authority in registering , maintaining , or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to 17 U.S.C.
504 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html [copyright.gov]), the minimum is $750 per work infringed while $30,000 is the max.
However, if the infringement is willfully committed it jumps to $150,000 but if the infringement is committed "innocently" (naively might be a better word) then it drops to $200.
What is really neat is the presumption of willfullness under section 3 when the violator "knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648768</id>
	<title>Summary + questions from a non-lawyer</title>
	<author>AcidPenguin9873</author>
	<datestamp>1262611020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL.  I did skim part of the brief.</p><p>The brief states that between the time Napster came out and iTunes came out, there was no ability for consumers to obtain music legally via download, and that posed a lack of choice for "Digital Natives" who wanted to obtain music that way.  The court recognized that period as an "interregnum period" during which I presume (again IANAL) that no one can be successfully prosecuted for copyright infringement for downloading.  However because iTunes was encrypted from 2003-2007, the brief argues that the interregnum period should be extended until some time in 2007, when encryption-free digital music was available.</p><p>The two main arguments for that are 1) publishers released DRM-free music on CD, so they partially contributed to the proliferation of the recordings on P2P networks and must have been aware of it by 2004, yet continued to sell and promote CDs.  (This seems awfully tenuous to me...the publishers were still trying to sell music, and by that point the digital market hadn't quite gotten to the saturation point where they could stop selling CDs, and CDs require DRM-free music), and 2) The brief cites a prior case in which a court recognized that care taken by the plaintiff to "protect" their IP made a fair use defense fail, and that had the plaintiffs failed to protect the IP, fair use defense might have worked.  In this case, the brief argues that the plaintiffs did not take enough "care" of their IP because they released them DRM-<i>free</i> on CD, and so fair use defense might work.  (To me that seems to be arguing a hypothesis - that the court in the prior case would have ruled differently if the plaintiff had acted differently - rather than arguing a precedent on an actual ruling.  Also, the CD format requires DRM-free music, so I'm not sure what sort of choice the publishers had there short of breaking everyone's existing CD players.  Digital being a newer format allows for new things like DRM.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL .
I did skim part of the brief.The brief states that between the time Napster came out and iTunes came out , there was no ability for consumers to obtain music legally via download , and that posed a lack of choice for " Digital Natives " who wanted to obtain music that way .
The court recognized that period as an " interregnum period " during which I presume ( again IANAL ) that no one can be successfully prosecuted for copyright infringement for downloading .
However because iTunes was encrypted from 2003-2007 , the brief argues that the interregnum period should be extended until some time in 2007 , when encryption-free digital music was available.The two main arguments for that are 1 ) publishers released DRM-free music on CD , so they partially contributed to the proliferation of the recordings on P2P networks and must have been aware of it by 2004 , yet continued to sell and promote CDs .
( This seems awfully tenuous to me...the publishers were still trying to sell music , and by that point the digital market had n't quite gotten to the saturation point where they could stop selling CDs , and CDs require DRM-free music ) , and 2 ) The brief cites a prior case in which a court recognized that care taken by the plaintiff to " protect " their IP made a fair use defense fail , and that had the plaintiffs failed to protect the IP , fair use defense might have worked .
In this case , the brief argues that the plaintiffs did not take enough " care " of their IP because they released them DRM-free on CD , and so fair use defense might work .
( To me that seems to be arguing a hypothesis - that the court in the prior case would have ruled differently if the plaintiff had acted differently - rather than arguing a precedent on an actual ruling .
Also , the CD format requires DRM-free music , so I 'm not sure what sort of choice the publishers had there short of breaking everyone 's existing CD players .
Digital being a newer format allows for new things like DRM .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL.
I did skim part of the brief.The brief states that between the time Napster came out and iTunes came out, there was no ability for consumers to obtain music legally via download, and that posed a lack of choice for "Digital Natives" who wanted to obtain music that way.
The court recognized that period as an "interregnum period" during which I presume (again IANAL) that no one can be successfully prosecuted for copyright infringement for downloading.
However because iTunes was encrypted from 2003-2007, the brief argues that the interregnum period should be extended until some time in 2007, when encryption-free digital music was available.The two main arguments for that are 1) publishers released DRM-free music on CD, so they partially contributed to the proliferation of the recordings on P2P networks and must have been aware of it by 2004, yet continued to sell and promote CDs.
(This seems awfully tenuous to me...the publishers were still trying to sell music, and by that point the digital market hadn't quite gotten to the saturation point where they could stop selling CDs, and CDs require DRM-free music), and 2) The brief cites a prior case in which a court recognized that care taken by the plaintiff to "protect" their IP made a fair use defense fail, and that had the plaintiffs failed to protect the IP, fair use defense might have worked.
In this case, the brief argues that the plaintiffs did not take enough "care" of their IP because they released them DRM-free on CD, and so fair use defense might work.
(To me that seems to be arguing a hypothesis - that the court in the prior case would have ruled differently if the plaintiff had acted differently - rather than arguing a precedent on an actual ruling.
Also, the CD format requires DRM-free music, so I'm not sure what sort of choice the publishers had there short of breaking everyone's existing CD players.
Digital being a newer format allows for new things like DRM.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648790</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1262611080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is a difference between fair use and pirating.</p></div></blockquote><p>And there is a difference between sharing mp3 files and pirating.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference between fair use and pirating.And there is a difference between sharing mp3 files and pirating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference between fair use and pirating.And there is a difference between sharing mp3 files and pirating.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30652544</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262684280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Humans as a species copy. From infants looking at their parents to musicians, architects, engineers and philosophers listening to others, we refine and produce.</p></div><p>Not anymore, I shall claim copyright on my genome and those infants shall have to wait for 75 year after my death till they may copy it or derive their own from it.<br>Take that Darwin!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... damn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans as a species copy .
From infants looking at their parents to musicians , architects , engineers and philosophers listening to others , we refine and produce.Not anymore , I shall claim copyright on my genome and those infants shall have to wait for 75 year after my death till they may copy it or derive their own from it.Take that Darwin !
... damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans as a species copy.
From infants looking at their parents to musicians, architects, engineers and philosophers listening to others, we refine and produce.Not anymore, I shall claim copyright on my genome and those infants shall have to wait for 75 year after my death till they may copy it or derive their own from it.Take that Darwin!
... damn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649152</id>
	<title>Re:What's the legal limit?</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1262612580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ray.....was it right to suggest those limits to the jury?</p></div><p>No in my opinion it was error. There was no basis for allowing anything above the $750 per infringed work minimum, and only the judge rather than the jury could have awarded less, so there was nothing for the jury to decide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ray.....was it right to suggest those limits to the jury ? No in my opinion it was error .
There was no basis for allowing anything above the $ 750 per infringed work minimum , and only the judge rather than the jury could have awarded less , so there was nothing for the jury to decide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ray.....was it right to suggest those limits to the jury?No in my opinion it was error.
There was no basis for allowing anything above the $750 per infringed work minimum, and only the judge rather than the jury could have awarded less, so there was nothing for the jury to decide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649562</id>
	<title>Re:Argument != Ruling</title>
	<author>EzInKy</author>
	<datestamp>1262614560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Each of these defendants quite obviously infringed copyright in that they quite obviously downloaded music without paying for it.<br></i></p><p>What law says you can't download music without paying for it? My radio downloads music with no more intervention from me other than to turn it on.</p><p><i><br>That is the law. You break it, you pay for it.<br></i></p><p>Or you fight it, just as in the past people fought slavery, jim crowe, prohibition, and many other laws they disliked. Laws that are obeyed don't get changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Each of these defendants quite obviously infringed copyright in that they quite obviously downloaded music without paying for it.What law says you ca n't download music without paying for it ?
My radio downloads music with no more intervention from me other than to turn it on.That is the law .
You break it , you pay for it.Or you fight it , just as in the past people fought slavery , jim crowe , prohibition , and many other laws they disliked .
Laws that are obeyed do n't get changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each of these defendants quite obviously infringed copyright in that they quite obviously downloaded music without paying for it.What law says you can't download music without paying for it?
My radio downloads music with no more intervention from me other than to turn it on.That is the law.
You break it, you pay for it.Or you fight it, just as in the past people fought slavery, jim crowe, prohibition, and many other laws they disliked.
Laws that are obeyed don't get changed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648538</id>
	<title>Re:If the fees are high to discourage people...</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1262609940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I can get behind what you're saying, the facts you infer do not apply here - the defendant in TFA was <i>supplying</i> the songs, not downloading them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I can get behind what you 're saying , the facts you infer do not apply here - the defendant in TFA was supplying the songs , not downloading them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I can get behind what you're saying, the facts you infer do not apply here - the defendant in TFA was supplying the songs, not downloading them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648550</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Personally, I think people should pay the artists for their work, they should pay the recording industry for their work, and if the music isn't worth 99 cents to them, they shouldn't get the music.</p></div><p>So let me begin with: <b>Opinion Alert! The following post is pure speculation and opinion, but done with the utmost sincerity!</b>
</p><p>
I agree with your point, but I'd like to note something that I believe to be true, namely that the only reason we <em>can</em> pay 99 cents for a movie is due to an industry adaptation that has been motivated in a large part by that very piracy. Prior to digital piracy pioneers like Napster, getting a single good song was not really an option. You had to buy an entire pricey CD. Downloading music legally also wasn't an option; you had to go to a store. The music industry created and funded the marketing, hype, publicity, content, and talent necessary to successfully Make Us Want Something, then failed to provide it at any reasonable price.
</p><p>
It is my belief that piracy is many things, among them a consumer movement in reaction to an unnaturally-imbalanced industry. Pirated music has, over the last fifteen years, frequently been a <b>better</b> product than that produced by the music industry. It was downloadable, accessible, and lacked both DRM and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony\_BMG\_CD\_copy\_protection\_scandal" title="wikipedia.org">license management shenanigans</a> [wikipedia.org]. It was a pure and simple solution to an otherwise unsolvable problem: a consumer movement!
</p><p>
Now, that doesn't make it <em>right</em> or <em>ethical</em>, but it doesn't make it evil either. The recording industry dragged their heels and did their very best (as they still are) to hinder the simple and fair distribution of their product, when that was exactly what consumers wanted. In response, consumers resorted to illegal activity, and <em>most</em> are better off for it.
</p><p>
The Napster of the past is what recording industries should have established years prior. A very significant impetus behind the current state of consumer-oriented legal music sharing like iTunes was (and is) perceived losses due to the piracy front. And look what we have now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... split albums, downloadable content, DRM-free songs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... It's done its share of good and then some. Piracy is forcing a hand that is using its own entrenched power to remain still, and the <b>world</b> is better for it.
</p><p>
Many people out there have pirated a significant share of music, and bought a significant amount as well. As legal avenues open (Amazon MP3 is great!), their usage of piracy has definitely declined. Nobody feels good about depriving someone of their just due, but it isn't always a bad thing to do so. Sometimes an illegal act is the only counterweight that one can provide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think people should pay the artists for their work , they should pay the recording industry for their work , and if the music is n't worth 99 cents to them , they should n't get the music.So let me begin with : Opinion Alert !
The following post is pure speculation and opinion , but done with the utmost sincerity !
I agree with your point , but I 'd like to note something that I believe to be true , namely that the only reason we can pay 99 cents for a movie is due to an industry adaptation that has been motivated in a large part by that very piracy .
Prior to digital piracy pioneers like Napster , getting a single good song was not really an option .
You had to buy an entire pricey CD .
Downloading music legally also was n't an option ; you had to go to a store .
The music industry created and funded the marketing , hype , publicity , content , and talent necessary to successfully Make Us Want Something , then failed to provide it at any reasonable price .
It is my belief that piracy is many things , among them a consumer movement in reaction to an unnaturally-imbalanced industry .
Pirated music has , over the last fifteen years , frequently been a better product than that produced by the music industry .
It was downloadable , accessible , and lacked both DRM and license management shenanigans [ wikipedia.org ] .
It was a pure and simple solution to an otherwise unsolvable problem : a consumer movement !
Now , that does n't make it right or ethical , but it does n't make it evil either .
The recording industry dragged their heels and did their very best ( as they still are ) to hinder the simple and fair distribution of their product , when that was exactly what consumers wanted .
In response , consumers resorted to illegal activity , and most are better off for it .
The Napster of the past is what recording industries should have established years prior .
A very significant impetus behind the current state of consumer-oriented legal music sharing like iTunes was ( and is ) perceived losses due to the piracy front .
And look what we have now ... split albums , downloadable content , DRM-free songs ... It 's done its share of good and then some .
Piracy is forcing a hand that is using its own entrenched power to remain still , and the world is better for it .
Many people out there have pirated a significant share of music , and bought a significant amount as well .
As legal avenues open ( Amazon MP3 is great !
) , their usage of piracy has definitely declined .
Nobody feels good about depriving someone of their just due , but it is n't always a bad thing to do so .
Sometimes an illegal act is the only counterweight that one can provide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Personally, I think people should pay the artists for their work, they should pay the recording industry for their work, and if the music isn't worth 99 cents to them, they shouldn't get the music.So let me begin with: Opinion Alert!
The following post is pure speculation and opinion, but done with the utmost sincerity!
I agree with your point, but I'd like to note something that I believe to be true, namely that the only reason we can pay 99 cents for a movie is due to an industry adaptation that has been motivated in a large part by that very piracy.
Prior to digital piracy pioneers like Napster, getting a single good song was not really an option.
You had to buy an entire pricey CD.
Downloading music legally also wasn't an option; you had to go to a store.
The music industry created and funded the marketing, hype, publicity, content, and talent necessary to successfully Make Us Want Something, then failed to provide it at any reasonable price.
It is my belief that piracy is many things, among them a consumer movement in reaction to an unnaturally-imbalanced industry.
Pirated music has, over the last fifteen years, frequently been a better product than that produced by the music industry.
It was downloadable, accessible, and lacked both DRM and license management shenanigans [wikipedia.org].
It was a pure and simple solution to an otherwise unsolvable problem: a consumer movement!
Now, that doesn't make it right or ethical, but it doesn't make it evil either.
The recording industry dragged their heels and did their very best (as they still are) to hinder the simple and fair distribution of their product, when that was exactly what consumers wanted.
In response, consumers resorted to illegal activity, and most are better off for it.
The Napster of the past is what recording industries should have established years prior.
A very significant impetus behind the current state of consumer-oriented legal music sharing like iTunes was (and is) perceived losses due to the piracy front.
And look what we have now ... split albums, downloadable content, DRM-free songs ... It's done its share of good and then some.
Piracy is forcing a hand that is using its own entrenched power to remain still, and the world is better for it.
Many people out there have pirated a significant share of music, and bought a significant amount as well.
As legal avenues open (Amazon MP3 is great!
), their usage of piracy has definitely declined.
Nobody feels good about depriving someone of their just due, but it isn't always a bad thing to do so.
Sometimes an illegal act is the only counterweight that one can provide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647860</id>
	<title>Argument != Ruling</title>
	<author>ezberry</author>
	<datestamp>1262606700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really shouldn't be news that someone is making an argument in their case. Anyone can make an argument - that doesn't mean it's right. And the standards on due process for damages are pretty wishy-washy. So, while I'm not saying this wouldn't be good news if it were ultimately upheld, it's not really news that someone is bringing it up. 99\% of all class actions are arguments made by plaintiffs' lawyers that are garbage, which never go anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really should n't be news that someone is making an argument in their case .
Anyone can make an argument - that does n't mean it 's right .
And the standards on due process for damages are pretty wishy-washy .
So , while I 'm not saying this would n't be good news if it were ultimately upheld , it 's not really news that someone is bringing it up .
99 \ % of all class actions are arguments made by plaintiffs ' lawyers that are garbage , which never go anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really shouldn't be news that someone is making an argument in their case.
Anyone can make an argument - that doesn't mean it's right.
And the standards on due process for damages are pretty wishy-washy.
So, while I'm not saying this wouldn't be good news if it were ultimately upheld, it's not really news that someone is bringing it up.
99\% of all class actions are arguments made by plaintiffs' lawyers that are garbage, which never go anywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647940</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>spiffydudex</author>
	<datestamp>1262607000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a difference between fair use and pirating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference between fair use and pirating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference between fair use and pirating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30650342</id>
	<title>And y'all believe this is gonna stop piracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262619600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I've said it before and I'll say it again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
Think again - unless the following issues are being addressed, piracy will not go away.
</p><ol>
<li>DVD technology: a dvd has a region code so that a dvd bought in one region can not be played in another region (unless you use an illegal hacked player). While an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.avi file can be played anywhere.</li>
<li>Payment methods: not everybody who wants to buy movies, music or software has a credit card. If you want everybody to buy your product, then you (the company) need to provide payment methods that cover all needs, incl. cash only. Another example: somebody has enough credit in their paypal account to buy a product, but they still can not buy the product they want, because at the end of the purchasing process, one is still required to enter a credit card number, despite sufficient credit in your paypal account. This example assumes the paypal account is not linked to a credit card and/or bank account. I do not know if this is an issue with paypal and/or the company selling the product, and I don't really care. It's a problem - and if you (the company) do not address it, piracy will continue.
<br>
      Side note: Bad credit and credit cards is what got us into the financial crisis in the first place.</li>
<li>Cost: a newly released dvd cost around 28 - 40 us$. How much does it cost to produce the dvd: probably one us$ or less. It doesn't matter, the question is: where is the bulk of the money we pay for a dvd going? To the artist? Probably not - but it should go to the artist.
<br>
      Side note: greed is the other reason that got us all into the financial crisis.</li>
<li>Business model: you do not actually buy software - no - you buy the right to use it. Who came up with this idea??</li>
</ol><p>
Unless the above issues (and I am sure other people have additional issues) are addressed, piracy will not go away.
</p><p>
Just my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.02 us$ worth<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it before and I 'll say it again .. . Think again - unless the following issues are being addressed , piracy will not go away .
DVD technology : a dvd has a region code so that a dvd bought in one region can not be played in another region ( unless you use an illegal hacked player ) .
While an .avi file can be played anywhere .
Payment methods : not everybody who wants to buy movies , music or software has a credit card .
If you want everybody to buy your product , then you ( the company ) need to provide payment methods that cover all needs , incl .
cash only .
Another example : somebody has enough credit in their paypal account to buy a product , but they still can not buy the product they want , because at the end of the purchasing process , one is still required to enter a credit card number , despite sufficient credit in your paypal account .
This example assumes the paypal account is not linked to a credit card and/or bank account .
I do not know if this is an issue with paypal and/or the company selling the product , and I do n't really care .
It 's a problem - and if you ( the company ) do not address it , piracy will continue .
Side note : Bad credit and credit cards is what got us into the financial crisis in the first place .
Cost : a newly released dvd cost around 28 - 40 us $ .
How much does it cost to produce the dvd : probably one us $ or less .
It does n't matter , the question is : where is the bulk of the money we pay for a dvd going ?
To the artist ?
Probably not - but it should go to the artist .
Side note : greed is the other reason that got us all into the financial crisis .
Business model : you do not actually buy software - no - you buy the right to use it .
Who came up with this idea ? ?
Unless the above issues ( and I am sure other people have additional issues ) are addressed , piracy will not go away .
Just my .02 us $ worth .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I've said it before and I'll say it again ...

Think again - unless the following issues are being addressed, piracy will not go away.
DVD technology: a dvd has a region code so that a dvd bought in one region can not be played in another region (unless you use an illegal hacked player).
While an .avi file can be played anywhere.
Payment methods: not everybody who wants to buy movies, music or software has a credit card.
If you want everybody to buy your product, then you (the company) need to provide payment methods that cover all needs, incl.
cash only.
Another example: somebody has enough credit in their paypal account to buy a product, but they still can not buy the product they want, because at the end of the purchasing process, one is still required to enter a credit card number, despite sufficient credit in your paypal account.
This example assumes the paypal account is not linked to a credit card and/or bank account.
I do not know if this is an issue with paypal and/or the company selling the product, and I don't really care.
It's a problem - and if you (the company) do not address it, piracy will continue.
Side note: Bad credit and credit cards is what got us into the financial crisis in the first place.
Cost: a newly released dvd cost around 28 - 40 us$.
How much does it cost to produce the dvd: probably one us$ or less.
It doesn't matter, the question is: where is the bulk of the money we pay for a dvd going?
To the artist?
Probably not - but it should go to the artist.
Side note: greed is the other reason that got us all into the financial crisis.
Business model: you do not actually buy software - no - you buy the right to use it.
Who came up with this idea??
Unless the above issues (and I am sure other people have additional issues) are addressed, piracy will not go away.
Just my .02 us$ worth ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653680</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1262699160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Humans as a species copy. From infants looking at their parents to musicians, architects, engineers and philosophers listening to others, we refine and produce. This is the essence of human culture. That companies can monopolize this flow is damaging to the progress of mankind</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Do you seriously believe that when you download the latest Lady Gaga song without paying for it you are helping the progress of mankind?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans as a species copy .
From infants looking at their parents to musicians , architects , engineers and philosophers listening to others , we refine and produce .
This is the essence of human culture .
That companies can monopolize this flow is damaging to the progress of mankind Do you seriously believe that when you download the latest Lady Gaga song without paying for it you are helping the progress of mankind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans as a species copy.
From infants looking at their parents to musicians, architects, engineers and philosophers listening to others, we refine and produce.
This is the essence of human culture.
That companies can monopolize this flow is damaging to the progress of mankind

Do you seriously believe that when you download the latest Lady Gaga song without paying for it you are helping the progress of mankind?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30654024</id>
	<title>Fundamental: Pertaining to the foundation or basis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262702640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fundamental problem here is not that of copying, but the matter of justice in proportion to the crime.</p> </div><p>Your parent argued that copying shouldn't be a crime because it's essential to human nature. If copying isn't a crime, then that's more basic than the proportions of a potential punishment. So the fundamental problem here <strong>is</strong> that of copying; yours is a secondary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental problem here is not that of copying , but the matter of justice in proportion to the crime .
Your parent argued that copying should n't be a crime because it 's essential to human nature .
If copying is n't a crime , then that 's more basic than the proportions of a potential punishment .
So the fundamental problem here is that of copying ; yours is a secondary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fundamental problem here is not that of copying, but the matter of justice in proportion to the crime.
Your parent argued that copying shouldn't be a crime because it's essential to human nature.
If copying isn't a crime, then that's more basic than the proportions of a potential punishment.
So the fundamental problem here is that of copying; yours is a secondary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30652990</id>
	<title>Re:If the fees are high to discourage people...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262689380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fees are exceptionally high for discouragement, because the rate of occurrance is exceptionally high, as is the chance of not getting caught. If only 1 out of a 100 million speeders got caught, and nothing could be done to increase that, then yes, the speding fines would increase as a result to compensate for the lack of capture.</p><p>Of course in reality, we have fixed speed and red light cameras, cops with radar guns and highway patrol to catch speeders. The equivalent tactics are used online, and everyone bitches that it's an invasion of privacy, "oh you can't be sure it was me, others use my network" and all kinds of bullshit excuses. That, and it seems the public are generally accepting of downloading copyrighted material, despite the numerous attempts at education (the pre-DVD piracy warning that everyone loves to joke about) so there's an element of public education as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fees are exceptionally high for discouragement , because the rate of occurrance is exceptionally high , as is the chance of not getting caught .
If only 1 out of a 100 million speeders got caught , and nothing could be done to increase that , then yes , the speding fines would increase as a result to compensate for the lack of capture.Of course in reality , we have fixed speed and red light cameras , cops with radar guns and highway patrol to catch speeders .
The equivalent tactics are used online , and everyone bitches that it 's an invasion of privacy , " oh you ca n't be sure it was me , others use my network " and all kinds of bullshit excuses .
That , and it seems the public are generally accepting of downloading copyrighted material , despite the numerous attempts at education ( the pre-DVD piracy warning that everyone loves to joke about ) so there 's an element of public education as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fees are exceptionally high for discouragement, because the rate of occurrance is exceptionally high, as is the chance of not getting caught.
If only 1 out of a 100 million speeders got caught, and nothing could be done to increase that, then yes, the speding fines would increase as a result to compensate for the lack of capture.Of course in reality, we have fixed speed and red light cameras, cops with radar guns and highway patrol to catch speeders.
The equivalent tactics are used online, and everyone bitches that it's an invasion of privacy, "oh you can't be sure it was me, others use my network" and all kinds of bullshit excuses.
That, and it seems the public are generally accepting of downloading copyrighted material, despite the numerous attempts at education (the pre-DVD piracy warning that everyone loves to joke about) so there's an element of public education as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649712</id>
	<title>Re:If the fees are high to discourage people...</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262615580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enjoying a song without permission = $22,500<br>Growing a plant without permission = 5 years<br>Illegally disabling competition in a multibillion dollar market for years = a few days of profit</p><p>I think there's an inverse relationship here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enjoying a song without permission = $ 22,500Growing a plant without permission = 5 yearsIllegally disabling competition in a multibillion dollar market for years = a few days of profitI think there 's an inverse relationship here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enjoying a song without permission = $22,500Growing a plant without permission = 5 yearsIllegally disabling competition in a multibillion dollar market for years = a few days of profitI think there's an inverse relationship here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002</id>
	<title>Re:still flogging this old dead horse?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1262607300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not the fact that a 'pirate' got punished that is at issue here, it's the fact that the penalty is so large it will probably push the defendant into bankruptcy; it is a penalty significantly larger than the damages suffered by the record companies, and perhaps most importantly, it is a penalty that was designed to punish an entirely different class of pirates (commercial pirates who manufacture and widely distribute copies of music for a nice profit. In that case the profit motive is large, so the deterring punishment should also be large).  <br> <br>
Personally, I think people should pay the artists for their work, they should pay the recording industry for their work, and if the music isn't worth 99 cents to them, they shouldn't get the music.  But we as a society shouldn't destroy someone financially just for downloading a few songs.  The punishment should match the crime, which in this case was small.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the fact that a 'pirate ' got punished that is at issue here , it 's the fact that the penalty is so large it will probably push the defendant into bankruptcy ; it is a penalty significantly larger than the damages suffered by the record companies , and perhaps most importantly , it is a penalty that was designed to punish an entirely different class of pirates ( commercial pirates who manufacture and widely distribute copies of music for a nice profit .
In that case the profit motive is large , so the deterring punishment should also be large ) .
Personally , I think people should pay the artists for their work , they should pay the recording industry for their work , and if the music is n't worth 99 cents to them , they should n't get the music .
But we as a society should n't destroy someone financially just for downloading a few songs .
The punishment should match the crime , which in this case was small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the fact that a 'pirate' got punished that is at issue here, it's the fact that the penalty is so large it will probably push the defendant into bankruptcy; it is a penalty significantly larger than the damages suffered by the record companies, and perhaps most importantly, it is a penalty that was designed to punish an entirely different class of pirates (commercial pirates who manufacture and widely distribute copies of music for a nice profit.
In that case the profit motive is large, so the deterring punishment should also be large).
Personally, I think people should pay the artists for their work, they should pay the recording industry for their work, and if the music isn't worth 99 cents to them, they shouldn't get the music.
But we as a society shouldn't destroy someone financially just for downloading a few songs.
The punishment should match the crime, which in this case was small.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212</id>
	<title>A perversion of law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort. RIAA pay politicians handsomely, and generally gets the laws they want. If they temporarily loose in court, they just pay to have the laws changed, and than they win. The draconian penalties as well as the never expiring rights RIAA enjoy is an amazing perversion.</p><p>The only thing that is worse is that this can happen in a democracy, and few care.</p><p>If you argue "well, just pay the $0.99 on iTunes and stop whining" you misunderstand culture fundamentally. Humans as a species copy. From infants looking at their parents to musicians, architects, engineers and philosophers listening to others, we refine and produce. This is the essence of human culture. That companies can monopolize this flow is damaging to the progress of mankind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort .
RIAA pay politicians handsomely , and generally gets the laws they want .
If they temporarily loose in court , they just pay to have the laws changed , and than they win .
The draconian penalties as well as the never expiring rights RIAA enjoy is an amazing perversion.The only thing that is worse is that this can happen in a democracy , and few care.If you argue " well , just pay the $ 0.99 on iTunes and stop whining " you misunderstand culture fundamentally .
Humans as a species copy .
From infants looking at their parents to musicians , architects , engineers and philosophers listening to others , we refine and produce .
This is the essence of human culture .
That companies can monopolize this flow is damaging to the progress of mankind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to fight RIAA in the courts is a loosing effort.
RIAA pay politicians handsomely, and generally gets the laws they want.
If they temporarily loose in court, they just pay to have the laws changed, and than they win.
The draconian penalties as well as the never expiring rights RIAA enjoy is an amazing perversion.The only thing that is worse is that this can happen in a democracy, and few care.If you argue "well, just pay the $0.99 on iTunes and stop whining" you misunderstand culture fundamentally.
Humans as a species copy.
From infants looking at their parents to musicians, architects, engineers and philosophers listening to others, we refine and produce.
This is the essence of human culture.
That companies can monopolize this flow is damaging to the progress of mankind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30659288</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>viking80</author>
	<datestamp>1262724060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>    So long as the public interest is maximally satisfied, why should our copyright policy care whether authors live comfortably or shiver in garrets?<br>
&nbsp;</p> </div><p>You are a small-minded turd.</p></div><p>Please avoid Ad hominem; You are missing GP's perfect argument. In nature, evolution makes a perfectly optimized ecosystem. The same in society. The invisible hand of self interest creates a perfect ecosystem where all resources are used to perfection. Example: Whoever can pay the most for a resource is the person that can utilize it most economically. Take a barrel of oil. Whether it is a plastic manufacturer or a truck hauling toys, whoever can refine and resell that resource for the highest price wins it. The same goes for garbage and your old car.</p><p>If the government grants monopolies, this optimization is disturbed, and the cost to society overall can be high. Examples: Taxing gas stations $100k to hire a weight &amp; measure inspector easily reduces GNP by $1million, or 10x. It is, however, deemed necessary to have a transparent marked. Government do however have to carefully weigh the cost against value. Maybe the alternative to the inspector is healthcare for 1000 poor children.  As in the natural world, where dinosaurs go extinct because there is a more efficient species in the same niche, so must society force the inefficient companies to yield to better ones. This is for the best of all. This is how our standard of living has increased from the stone age till today. It may seem brutal, but in the long run, it is better for all.</p><p>The copyright law was intended to encourage creativity and carefully balanced this with the technology at the time.</p><p>Over time the law instead has become a crutch to keep dinosaurs alive artificially, and it is very likely that for every $$ they make, they deprive society not of 10x but closer to 100x. I will not go into the details of this ratio, but a lot of texts on macroeconomics discuss this.  It would be cheaper for society to pay the dinosaurs lavishly just to do nothing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So long as the public interest is maximally satisfied , why should our copyright policy care whether authors live comfortably or shiver in garrets ?
  You are a small-minded turd.Please avoid Ad hominem ; You are missing GP 's perfect argument .
In nature , evolution makes a perfectly optimized ecosystem .
The same in society .
The invisible hand of self interest creates a perfect ecosystem where all resources are used to perfection .
Example : Whoever can pay the most for a resource is the person that can utilize it most economically .
Take a barrel of oil .
Whether it is a plastic manufacturer or a truck hauling toys , whoever can refine and resell that resource for the highest price wins it .
The same goes for garbage and your old car.If the government grants monopolies , this optimization is disturbed , and the cost to society overall can be high .
Examples : Taxing gas stations $ 100k to hire a weight &amp; measure inspector easily reduces GNP by $ 1million , or 10x .
It is , however , deemed necessary to have a transparent marked .
Government do however have to carefully weigh the cost against value .
Maybe the alternative to the inspector is healthcare for 1000 poor children .
As in the natural world , where dinosaurs go extinct because there is a more efficient species in the same niche , so must society force the inefficient companies to yield to better ones .
This is for the best of all .
This is how our standard of living has increased from the stone age till today .
It may seem brutal , but in the long run , it is better for all.The copyright law was intended to encourage creativity and carefully balanced this with the technology at the time.Over time the law instead has become a crutch to keep dinosaurs alive artificially , and it is very likely that for every $ $ they make , they deprive society not of 10x but closer to 100x .
I will not go into the details of this ratio , but a lot of texts on macroeconomics discuss this .
It would be cheaper for society to pay the dinosaurs lavishly just to do nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    So long as the public interest is maximally satisfied, why should our copyright policy care whether authors live comfortably or shiver in garrets?
  You are a small-minded turd.Please avoid Ad hominem; You are missing GP's perfect argument.
In nature, evolution makes a perfectly optimized ecosystem.
The same in society.
The invisible hand of self interest creates a perfect ecosystem where all resources are used to perfection.
Example: Whoever can pay the most for a resource is the person that can utilize it most economically.
Take a barrel of oil.
Whether it is a plastic manufacturer or a truck hauling toys, whoever can refine and resell that resource for the highest price wins it.
The same goes for garbage and your old car.If the government grants monopolies, this optimization is disturbed, and the cost to society overall can be high.
Examples: Taxing gas stations $100k to hire a weight &amp; measure inspector easily reduces GNP by $1million, or 10x.
It is, however, deemed necessary to have a transparent marked.
Government do however have to carefully weigh the cost against value.
Maybe the alternative to the inspector is healthcare for 1000 poor children.
As in the natural world, where dinosaurs go extinct because there is a more efficient species in the same niche, so must society force the inefficient companies to yield to better ones.
This is for the best of all.
This is how our standard of living has increased from the stone age till today.
It may seem brutal, but in the long run, it is better for all.The copyright law was intended to encourage creativity and carefully balanced this with the technology at the time.Over time the law instead has become a crutch to keep dinosaurs alive artificially, and it is very likely that for every $$ they make, they deprive society not of 10x but closer to 100x.
I will not go into the details of this ratio, but a lot of texts on macroeconomics discuss this.
It would be cheaper for society to pay the dinosaurs lavishly just to do nothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30654142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648274</id>
	<title>The cover sheet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the cover sheet I see at least two obvious mistakes: a phone number with an extra digit, and the name of the law firm is misspelled.  I'm sorry, but this smacks of sloppiness. If I were the judge reading this brief, I would be on my guard for other mistakes, including legal ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the cover sheet I see at least two obvious mistakes : a phone number with an extra digit , and the name of the law firm is misspelled .
I 'm sorry , but this smacks of sloppiness .
If I were the judge reading this brief , I would be on my guard for other mistakes , including legal ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the cover sheet I see at least two obvious mistakes: a phone number with an extra digit, and the name of the law firm is misspelled.
I'm sorry, but this smacks of sloppiness.
If I were the judge reading this brief, I would be on my guard for other mistakes, including legal ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648740</id>
	<title>Re:Argument != Ruling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262610900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those who support Joel Tenenbaum and Jammie Thomas are picking the wrong poster-children. Each of these defendants quite obviously infringed copyright in that they quite obviously downloaded music without paying for it. NYCL has espoused each of their causes, in each case trotting out a number of rubbish arguments as to why the cases against them should be dismissed. Each time, the RIAA has won. Each time NYCL has whinged about incompetent counsel (twice in Thomas' case).</p><p>When there is a genuine case of mistaken ID, then will be the time to rally round. So far, the RIAA has brought two cases to trial. Each time, the RIAA has won. Rightly, on the evidence as given in the Thomas transcript and admittedly in the Tenenbaum case.</p><p>The 'making available' argument was aired in the Thomas case (although her counsel didn't bother to bring the precedents to court) and the jury instructions were that making available was sufficient to found liability. If that were seriously in dispute, I would have expected to see a summary judgment or pre-trial motion to clarify that issue. I suspect that the 'making available' argument is perfectly good law. Of interest is that it is a head of copyright infringment in the UK, on which US law is to some extent based.</p><p>In short, Tenenbaum infringed, he admitted he infringed. This is not a case where we should feel sorry for the Defendant. And for those who say 'copyright law is wrong boo hoo hoo': TOUGH. That is the law. You break it, you pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those who support Joel Tenenbaum and Jammie Thomas are picking the wrong poster-children .
Each of these defendants quite obviously infringed copyright in that they quite obviously downloaded music without paying for it .
NYCL has espoused each of their causes , in each case trotting out a number of rubbish arguments as to why the cases against them should be dismissed .
Each time , the RIAA has won .
Each time NYCL has whinged about incompetent counsel ( twice in Thomas ' case ) .When there is a genuine case of mistaken ID , then will be the time to rally round .
So far , the RIAA has brought two cases to trial .
Each time , the RIAA has won .
Rightly , on the evidence as given in the Thomas transcript and admittedly in the Tenenbaum case.The 'making available ' argument was aired in the Thomas case ( although her counsel did n't bother to bring the precedents to court ) and the jury instructions were that making available was sufficient to found liability .
If that were seriously in dispute , I would have expected to see a summary judgment or pre-trial motion to clarify that issue .
I suspect that the 'making available ' argument is perfectly good law .
Of interest is that it is a head of copyright infringment in the UK , on which US law is to some extent based.In short , Tenenbaum infringed , he admitted he infringed .
This is not a case where we should feel sorry for the Defendant .
And for those who say 'copyright law is wrong boo hoo hoo ' : TOUGH .
That is the law .
You break it , you pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those who support Joel Tenenbaum and Jammie Thomas are picking the wrong poster-children.
Each of these defendants quite obviously infringed copyright in that they quite obviously downloaded music without paying for it.
NYCL has espoused each of their causes, in each case trotting out a number of rubbish arguments as to why the cases against them should be dismissed.
Each time, the RIAA has won.
Each time NYCL has whinged about incompetent counsel (twice in Thomas' case).When there is a genuine case of mistaken ID, then will be the time to rally round.
So far, the RIAA has brought two cases to trial.
Each time, the RIAA has won.
Rightly, on the evidence as given in the Thomas transcript and admittedly in the Tenenbaum case.The 'making available' argument was aired in the Thomas case (although her counsel didn't bother to bring the precedents to court) and the jury instructions were that making available was sufficient to found liability.
If that were seriously in dispute, I would have expected to see a summary judgment or pre-trial motion to clarify that issue.
I suspect that the 'making available' argument is perfectly good law.
Of interest is that it is a head of copyright infringment in the UK, on which US law is to some extent based.In short, Tenenbaum infringed, he admitted he infringed.
This is not a case where we should feel sorry for the Defendant.
And for those who say 'copyright law is wrong boo hoo hoo': TOUGH.
That is the law.
You break it, you pay for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648804</id>
	<title>Re:A perversion of law</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1262611080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We in the modern west have a problem, and I, for one, do not see an easy solution.</p><p>It used to be that making copies of creative works was a physical task that was the domain of professionals. As such, enforcing copyrights was relatively easy.</p><p>As soon as copyrightable creative works were representable in digital form, and computers became capable of copying them trivially, that changed utterly.</p><p>Copyrights exist so that creators of creative works can be given an incentive to create. Their creations, on the whole, enrich society. That's the basic copyright bargain: You write good books and we, as a society, will insure that you can make a living doing it. Of course, another part of the bargain is that your monopoly is for a limited time - that it will eventually fall into the public domain. Congress, in its wisdom, has been eroding that on a regular basis, but that's a whole different discussion.</p><p>In an era where digital representations of copyrightable works can be freely copied (DRM doesn't count - breaking the DRM is largely equivalent to scanning in and OCRing a book - something you have to do once, but then the work is disencumbered), however, the idea of being able to police the copying so that authors of creative works can be fairly compensated becomes impossible.</p><p>Notice that I said <i>fairly</i> compensated. That means that consumers of creative works (readers of books, listeners of music, watchers of movies and TV shows) pay commensurate with their consumption, and authors get paid commensurate with the relative rates of consumption.</p><p>DRM is an attempt to retain control over content copying. Alas (for the ??AA), it is the exact equivalent of an ostrich attempting to control predation by burying its head in the sand.</p><p>The Copyright system no longer functions properly because conditions in the world have changed irrevocably. I don't have an answer as to how to fix it. Nobody does, because if they did, things would be different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We in the modern west have a problem , and I , for one , do not see an easy solution.It used to be that making copies of creative works was a physical task that was the domain of professionals .
As such , enforcing copyrights was relatively easy.As soon as copyrightable creative works were representable in digital form , and computers became capable of copying them trivially , that changed utterly.Copyrights exist so that creators of creative works can be given an incentive to create .
Their creations , on the whole , enrich society .
That 's the basic copyright bargain : You write good books and we , as a society , will insure that you can make a living doing it .
Of course , another part of the bargain is that your monopoly is for a limited time - that it will eventually fall into the public domain .
Congress , in its wisdom , has been eroding that on a regular basis , but that 's a whole different discussion.In an era where digital representations of copyrightable works can be freely copied ( DRM does n't count - breaking the DRM is largely equivalent to scanning in and OCRing a book - something you have to do once , but then the work is disencumbered ) , however , the idea of being able to police the copying so that authors of creative works can be fairly compensated becomes impossible.Notice that I said fairly compensated .
That means that consumers of creative works ( readers of books , listeners of music , watchers of movies and TV shows ) pay commensurate with their consumption , and authors get paid commensurate with the relative rates of consumption.DRM is an attempt to retain control over content copying .
Alas ( for the ?
? AA ) , it is the exact equivalent of an ostrich attempting to control predation by burying its head in the sand.The Copyright system no longer functions properly because conditions in the world have changed irrevocably .
I do n't have an answer as to how to fix it .
Nobody does , because if they did , things would be different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We in the modern west have a problem, and I, for one, do not see an easy solution.It used to be that making copies of creative works was a physical task that was the domain of professionals.
As such, enforcing copyrights was relatively easy.As soon as copyrightable creative works were representable in digital form, and computers became capable of copying them trivially, that changed utterly.Copyrights exist so that creators of creative works can be given an incentive to create.
Their creations, on the whole, enrich society.
That's the basic copyright bargain: You write good books and we, as a society, will insure that you can make a living doing it.
Of course, another part of the bargain is that your monopoly is for a limited time - that it will eventually fall into the public domain.
Congress, in its wisdom, has been eroding that on a regular basis, but that's a whole different discussion.In an era where digital representations of copyrightable works can be freely copied (DRM doesn't count - breaking the DRM is largely equivalent to scanning in and OCRing a book - something you have to do once, but then the work is disencumbered), however, the idea of being able to police the copying so that authors of creative works can be fairly compensated becomes impossible.Notice that I said fairly compensated.
That means that consumers of creative works (readers of books, listeners of music, watchers of movies and TV shows) pay commensurate with their consumption, and authors get paid commensurate with the relative rates of consumption.DRM is an attempt to retain control over content copying.
Alas (for the ?
?AA), it is the exact equivalent of an ostrich attempting to control predation by burying its head in the sand.The Copyright system no longer functions properly because conditions in the world have changed irrevocably.
I don't have an answer as to how to fix it.
Nobody does, because if they did, things would be different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30652990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30656806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30652874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30655762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30659314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30655120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30650790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30659288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30654142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30658648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30652544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30654024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30657034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30650342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_195208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30654024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651578
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30654142
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30659288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30657034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30652544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30656806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30652990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30655762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30658648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30653144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30650342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30650790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30655120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_195208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30652874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648550
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30659314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648634
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30651702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648868
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30649320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30648384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_195208.30647952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
